text:
Talk:Zygmunt Wojciechowski

Ministerstwo Nauki i Informatyzacji
http://www.mnii.gov.pl: Innym wybitnym historykiem był Zygmunt Wojciechowski (1900-1955), członek AU i PAN. Badał problematykę ustrojowo-prawną średniowiecznej Polski. Był współtwórcą tzw. polskiej teorii rodowej (przyjmującej, że organizacja państwa polskiego była wynikiem ewolucji ustroju rodowego) i autorem wielu znanych opracowań, jak np. „Państwo polskie w wiekach średnich. Dzieje ustroju”. Podczas okupacji niemieckiej wykładał w konspiracji. Po wojnie założył Instytut Zachodni w Poznaniu.

Encyklopedia PWN
WOJCIECHOWSKI ZYGMUNT (1900–55), ojciec Mariana, historyk, prawnik; od 1929 prof. uniw. w Poznaniu; od 1934 jeden z gł. ideologów OWP; podczas okupacji niem. wykładowca tajnego Uniw. Ziem Zach.; od 1945 czł. PAU, od 1952 PAN; założyciel (1945) i dyr. Inst. Zach. w Poznaniu, założyciel (1945) i red. nacz. „Przeglądu Zachodniego”, 1948–52 red. nacz. „Czasopisma Prawno-Historycznego”; badacz zagadnień organizacji państwa i społeczeństwa średniow. Polski; gł. prace: Polska nad Wisłą i Odrą w X w. (1939), Państwo polskie w wiekach średnich. Dzieje ustroju (1945), Zygmunt Stary... (1946), Studia historyczne (1955).

Manipulating sources?
I am checking sources provided for some statements in this article and there seems some heavy manipulation involved. Key sentences have been removed, and in other areas exchanged-for example Piast Poland for "Former German territories". I am continuing to read what was given as source here, and further corrections are necessary.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 19:12, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sure you are well aware of WP:COPYVIO, we don't copy and paste sources but we summarize them. To summarize Silesia, Pomerania etc. as the Former eastern territories of Germany is not erroneous. You might disagree on whether a summary is complete or lacks important (from your POV) information but this is not a "manipulation" of sources. Please take more care of your diction and respect WP:AGF and WP:NPA. BTW, talking about manipulation, while the source describes Wojciechowski's definition of "motherland territories" as W.'s POV, you prefer to present it as a fact, mmhh. HerkusMonte (talk) 14:30, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

 * Speaking of COPYVIO, that whole paragraph based on Haar and Fahlbusch is taken almost verbatim from Haar and Fahlbusch - a pretty clear case of copy vio. That's putting aside the fact that I don't see why  the fact that Wojciechowski initially misjudged Hitler (Chamberlein anyone?) is all that important here, except, again, as an attempt to find as many negative things as possible about the guy, simply because the research he later produced contradicts some people's pov.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:08, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It's almost verbatim from Haar/Fahlbusch because Molobo expanded it that way. The background and sympathies of an influential scholar and nationalist politician is for sure noteworthy.
 * "an attempt to find as many negative things as possible about the guy, simply because the research he later produced contradicts some people's pov" - I'll come back to that view, e.g. at Theodor Schieder. HerkusMonte (talk) 17:45, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah... Wojciechowski never was a Nazi, nor did he carry out research which called for ethnic cleansing, nor was he one of the "intellectual fathers" of the final solution. Apples and oranges, and you really shouldn't make comparison like that.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:15, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * A historian uses his profession to justify territorial claims against neighbouring countries and the expulsion of several million of people. The million $ question: Who was that? a)Theodor Schieder b)Zygmunt Wojciechowski.
 * "nor did he carry out research which called for ethnic cleansing" I think you missed something here.
 * Let me recapitulate what happened here throughout the last days: I tried to summarize Haar/Fahlbusch (respecting WP:copyvio). Molobo came up, accused me of "manipulating sources" (because they were not cited verbatim) and added material rather in a "copy and paste"-way. More or less immediately you follow up and remove the whole section for "copyvio". Without knowing about WP:EEML, one might guess that's just accidental. HerkusMonte (talk) 05:37, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * a). Now where's my million bucks?
 * You shouldn't have added cherry picked quotes to the article, and Molobo should have rephrased whatever he was adding. So wait, you're saying I reverted him?
 * At this point I can't do much more than roll my eyes when this EEML is brought up yet again for no reason.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:46, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * (because they were not cited verbatim) Nope, because you forgot to add that he became critical to Hitler or reasons for shift of his interest towards Italy. In any case there can be no comparison between racist Nazi Schieder who was involved in supporting racial war of extermination towards people classified as "untermenschen" by German state in 1939-1945 and Wojciechowski who was just interested in securing borders that would allow for continued peace in Europe.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 09:48, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Question to Herkus-why is the full quote not provided, and why is it in German
 "Unsere Edition (...) ist einseitig, wir fügen hinzu: ganz bewußt einseitig. (...) Wir bemühen uns hier nicht um eine sogenannte objektive Geschichtsschreibung. Unsere Aufgabe bestand darin, die polnische Geschichte dieser Länder darzustellen und die polnische gegenwärtige Realität dieser Länder auf diesen historischen Hintergrund zu projizieren." A- I doubt Wojciechowski wrote in German. B-why is this quote edited to conceal several parts within it? I will request full quote along with source for this statement.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 15:54, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

 * The source is Gregor Thum: "Die fremde Stadt" (in German) and Thum obviously translated the original, left out some parts and quoted only the most important. The citation above is what Thum wrote. If you've got access to the original (Ziemie Staropolskie) you might check the complete prologue. You might also ask User:Piotrus for a confirmation, I think I remember he knew Thum's book. HerkusMonte (talk) 16:10, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

 * left out some parts and quoted only the most important Really. So what were these "left parts"? Could tell me to provide from where he took Wojciechowski quote so that we may see the original text before Thum's translation, what these "parts" contain that was so unimportant in Thum's view?--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 16:23, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Ziemie Staropolskie, seriously, it's not that hard to find. HerkusMonte (talk) 16:30, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * So Thum doesn't even give any page number for the supposed statement he cut in several places? Btw: I think you haven't realised that this a series of volumes--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 16:43, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not using Wojciechowski but Thum as a source and Thum is correctly cited. For your convenience, the exact reference is: Sosnowski, Kiryl; Suchicki, Mieczyslaw; "Dolny Slask", part I page 10 (Prologue by Wojciechowski). HerkusMonte (talk) 16:56, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

You can see Thum on Amazon preview. The quote's translation was somewhat mangled (probably double so, Polish->German and German->English), but what it appears to be is a note to the reader that these particular works are polemic, much like any decent newspaper labels it's Opinion Page with the label "Opinion". He's just being up front about the POV that these particular works were written from.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:48, 21 May 2011 (UTC) I will try to find the original book and see what the missing sentences are.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:02, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

With regard to this all I can say is that Thum is a (purposefully or not) a pretty bad translator. But I guess it's a reliable source so that's fine - though perhaps it should be noted that this is a translation from Polish by a German writer.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:00, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

This is a mangled and cut version. The full quote is completely different and gives much more info and context. I have it and will translate.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 21:21, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Remember to avoid OR. Thum is a reliable scholar and his book is a reliable source. If you have a different RS claiming Thum misquoted or mistranslated Wojciechowski you might add that source. HerkusMonte (talk) 06:15, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I have the full quote, with parts that were cut by Thum in sentences. Also remember that translations aren't classified as OR.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 08:40, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

DYK fail?
Not enough expansion? Could be restored if somebody where to add a paragraph or two. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 21:43, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I will add more than that when I get time during the week. I have a complete overview of his theories till 1939.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 21:46, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

?
Herkus, you just removed a large chunk of sourced text with a claim that it was "unencyclopedic". The text was fine, though I'm guessing it's the section heading that set you off. But that's no excuse. There was nothing "unencyclopedic" about the text itself, it was sourced, and is obviously very relevant here. This kind of action - the blanket reversal of someone else's expansion of an article for IDONTLIKEIT reasons - does border on the disruptive.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:32, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

MMA, is there an online version of the GW article? All I can find is the "readers' comments" section.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:41, 29 June 2011 (UTC) You need to search archives of GW, its pay on demand now. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 19:25, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * OOPS, sorry, I meant the section headlines, my mistake. HerkusMonte (talk) 05:22, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, ok. Cool.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:23, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Quote
I added the full quote of foreword of Wojciechowski. Remember that translations are not OR. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 19:25, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * And what exactly is relevant in this quote? Seems to be a case of WP:QUOTEFARM. HerkusMonte (talk) 05:23, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You introduced the tweaked quote without context. Either remove the manipulated and cut sentence without context or restore the full quote that isn't manipulated.A summary is also preferable--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 12:57, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The quote is based on Gregor Thum's book, which is available online. The requests are fringe because it is easily verifiable. Wojciechowski "stresses the Polish aspects of the area's history", I don't see any "manipulation" or even a divergent context. Thum is a reliable scholar and his choice of the relevant quote is persuasive. If you think a further quote is needed, please explain why. HerkusMonte (talk) 15:48, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

"The requests are fringe"-what that does even mean? As to Thum quote it's obvious that he manipulated and cut the sentence of Wojciechowski-whole segments within are cut off (even in fragments presented) and no context provided. The full quote has completely different meaning and contains vital context that explains that due to German control of this lands they now need to focus on Polish history because it was neglected. Right now we have a silly taken out of context and cut sentence that tries to imply Wojciechowski simply claims he will be not objective, without explaining why. Either the quote will be restored or summary provided instead of this. The current state is POV and unacceptable.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 16:00, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see any "completely different meaning", Thum's quote illustrates W's self-conception and how he defined the role of historiography. Nothing more, nothing less. HerkusMonte (talk) 16:14, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thum's quote cuts all the context from Wojciechowski's statement and only shows a short sentence(and even there cuts away much of the material) that he is not objective.Nowhere in Thum's quote is there full context of this statment(the need to write about Polish history after centuries of German domination which resulted in distorted abundance of German history but lack of writing about Polish one) For full understanding we need to provide either the full quote or summary.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 16:22, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * If you know a reliable scholar or source, criticizing Thum like that, you might add something about it. Currently it's only what you think about Thum. HerkusMonte (talk) 16:29, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * We are not discussing Thum but the quote and way it is presented in the article. You are confusing two different issues.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 16:31, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

was a Polish historian and nationalist politician
He was a politician till 1939. Xx236 (talk) 08:35, 12 March 2014 (UTC) is recognised today as exceptional historian, and one of people who formed Polish intellectual elites - the quoted source is an article by a Polish journalist. Google doesn't give any detailed reliable informations about Wojciechowski. Xx236 (talk) 13:51, 12 March 2014 (UTC) http://www.niklot.szczecin.pl/publicystyka/111-maciej-motas-ziemie-zachodnie-i-zygmunt-wojciechowski.html is written by a nationalist.Xx236 (talk) 13:52, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Zygmunt Wojciechowski. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110728152339/http://free.art.pl/podkowa.magazyn/nr52/podziemie.htm to http://free.art.pl/podkowa.magazyn/nr52/podziemie.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:08, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

title: Talk:Zygmunt Wojciechowski


text:
Armando Quintero Martínez

Armando Quintero Martínez (born 25 November 1954 in Mexico City) is a Mexican left-wing politician and labor leader affiliated with Movimiento Ciudadano.

Political career
Quintero is a founder and labor leader of the UNAM's Workers Union (Sindicato de Trabajadores de la Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México or STUNAM); he is also one of the PRD founders. Quintero served in the lower house of the Mexican Congress during the LVI Legislature. In 2000 he gained a seat in the Legislative Assembly of the Federal District and in 2003 he was elected borough mayor (jefe delegacional) in Iztacalco, Mexican Federal District. He ran again for the Iztacalco mayorship in 2015 after switching parties from the Party of the Democratic Revolution to Movimiento Ciudadano.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Armando Quintero Martínez


text:
Last of the Good Straight Girls

Last of the Good Straight Girls is the third album by American singer-songwriter Susan Werner, released in 1995 (see 1995 in music). This was Werner's first major label album.

Track listing
All songs written by Susan Werner, except where noted

 * 1) "Last of the Good Straight Girls" – 3:43
 * 2) "Still Believe" – 5:19
 * 3) "Man I Used to Love" – 4:09
 * 4) "St. Mary's of Regret" – 4:09
 * 5) "No One Here but Me" (Fernando Saunders, Werner) – 4:16
 * 6) "Through the Glass" (Saunders, Werner) – 4:40
 * 7) "Some Other Town" (Saunders, Werner) – 4:07
 * 8) "Yes to You (Tappan Zee)" – 4:08
 * 9) "Something So Right" (Paul Simon) – 5:25
 * 10) "Signing Your Name" – 5:13
 * 11) "Much at All" – 3:14

Personnel

 * Susan Werner – vocals
 * Marshall Crenshaw – electric guitar
 * Mitchell Froom – keyboards
 * Zachary Richard

Production

 * Producer: Fernando Saunders
 * Assistant engineer: Jodie Zalewski

title: Last of the Good Straight Girls


text: Talk:Last of the Good Straight Girls

title: Talk:Last of the Good Straight Girls


text:
User:IZAK/Jew

This page is connected to User talk:IZAK/Jew

title: User:IZAK/Jew


text: Category:Delta Scuti variables

title: Category:Delta Scuti variables


text:
Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Blackface/Archive1

Blackface
Self-nomination. I simply think it's a damned good article. Comprehensive. (Note that there's a separate article on minstrel show -- which, IMO, needs help.) I've also got another photo I'd like to include (as soon as I figure out how; I'm a techno-idiot newbie). deeceevoice 02:23, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Object. No references. Johnleemk | Talk 03:12, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Object. I a very well written, very interesting article. However, the headings are POV (even if I agree with them), and there are no references. - Ta bu shi da yu 05:06, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Object: same reasons as previous users. Filiocht 08:37, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)
 * Serious question: What is POV about the subheads?  Is this about (seriously) your ignorance of the subject matter?  Is this a function of the "no references" thing?  For me (history buff, collector of black americana), it's a no-brainer.  Talk to me.  About "well-written" -- while I'm certainly not the only contributor -- thanks.  deeceevoice 10:42, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * OK, well, firstly (and this isn't to do with POV) the headings aren't as clear as they should be. Headings should be boring and just explain what the section is going to deal with. They shouldn't be long-winded. "Illusion and art: the shaping of racist stereotypes" is passable: barely. It seems to be pushing a anti-racist agenda, which though I most definitely agree with, is not really acceptable on Wikipedia. We don't push that POV. We only describe it and detail it, and people's opinions of it. "Darky iconography: the enduring legacy of blackface minstrelsy" "The enduring legacy" is a POV. Just call it "Darky iconography and blackface minstrelsy". "Blackface minstrelsy and the "browning" of American and world pop culture" OK, seems good. Far too long for a title however. Incidently, you are correct that I am ignorant of the subject matter, but I can pick a POV phrase/title a mile off :-) Ta bu shi da yu 12:40, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Object. It is well written, Deecee, but it is also very POV. Illusion and art &c. should probably just be titled History; the Darky iconography section goes off on a related tangent, which may be best trimmed or relocated; what remains coudl be titled Iconogrpahy or better Symbology (or something even better!); and Blackface minstrelsy and the "browning" &c. is probably best titled Modern influence. The titles should NOT shape the reader's interpretation. --Dhartung | Talk 10:51, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Thanks, folks, for the useful advice -- and especially Dhartung for taking the time to explain. However, on one point I must take issue.  I don't think the iconography segment is a tangent; it is seminal to the subject and treats the significance/impacts of blackface.  If the article were more lengthy, I might see the need to truncate it, but as it stands, I don't see the information as tangential or excessive.  (Is there serious disagreement on this point?)  Will work on subheads.  Will that address the POV?  Again, I'm not being intentionally obtuse; to me, this stuff is "old hat." deeceevoice 11:22, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I agree that this section is not going on a tangent. I would advise to keep it. I think people's opinions on tangents can be affected by headings... - Ta bu shi da yu 12:40, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Thanks again for your comments, Ta bu shi da yu -- and for your concurrence with me regarding keeping the article intact. So, headings should be "boring"?  LOL  Actually, people, that's precisely what I was trying to avoid!  Truly, there is nothing incorrect or off-the-mark with any of the subheads in this piece.  As with any work, the subheads say what the subsequent information presents -- and are borne out by the information presented.  As long as the information is borne out by appropriate references, what's the problem?  (I'm working on that.  The information I've presented is straight out of my head -- stuff that's an accumulation of information acquired over time.  I'll work to find appropriate backup.)  Are the headings interesting/provocative?  Yes, by design.  The subject matter itself is provocative and potentially explosive.  Name me one thing dealing with race relations in the U.S. that isn't. :-p That the images and portrayals of black folks concocted and purveyed by blackface minstrelsy were racist is not a matter of contention anywhere that I'm aware.  It's simply an ugly fact of history.  The article, however, does put such things in context in the sense that it states from the outset that virtually everbody got trashed onstage in some stupid, stereotypical manner.  Such were the times.  It seems there is a tendency on Wikipedia to dance around such subjects -- as in the minstrel show piece, which I view as shamelessly bland and intellectually dishonest at its core.  (What ever happened to "BE BOLD!"? :-p)  It speaks in general terms about stereotypical portrayal, but doesn't even once mention "racism."  And that is appalling/a travesty, given minstrelsy's importance in helping to shape atavistic attitudes about "race" that plague this nation, still.  And, no, this isn't my stubborn attempt to keep every single word as is.  I will take a second look at the subheads -- particularly the "browning" thing since a lot of people may be unfamiliar with Richard Rodriguez -- and see what I can come up with.  I just want to make the point that Wikipedia can be factual, substantive and scholarly without being bland and ponderous.  Peace. deeceevoice 12:49, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Support. This is a great article. The writing is compelling; the subject matter is fascinating and important; and the wealth of detail makes you want to keep on reading it. I'd like to see more inline references, so that if a reader or editor wanted quickly to check a few of your claims, they could do so easily. But that's not an objection. I feel this is exactly the kind of article that people will come to Wikipedia to read. It's lively, not POV. I hope you find some time to work a bit more on this to remove some of the objections. I've put articles up myself for Featured Article status, so I know what these objections can feel like. But don't be disheartened! Try to incorporate some of them and push ahead for this to become a Featured Article. Slim 10:05, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)

 * I likely won't have time to do anything more on this anytime soon. Stuff always tends to pile up just before the holidays, and this year's no exception.  I'll eventually provide references -- and may apply for featured article status later.  It's just not that important to me -- something I did on a whim.  Peace -- and happy holidays, all.  deeceevoice 02:55, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Object until it has proper references and the extra-long headings are shortened . Otherwise, an excellent piece on a difficult topic. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:52, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I shortened the subheads. Hopefully, they meet with approval.  Will work on references probably after the holidays and then resubmit. deeceevoice 14:21, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Support - Great article and the recent edits bring it into the encyclopedic - Trick 23:15, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Support I shouldn't say too much because I started the article, but it has matured and expanded with much help from others, particularly deeceevoice and I'm proud to be a part of it. Ortolan88 18:06, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Wow. This has improved heaps since I last saw it. But no References? Are any of the external links references? Object for now.--ZayZayEM 10:13, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Object. Lacks enough references. There is only one inline reference that I can see. Otherwise it looks very well done. It needs to have references that confirm the material in the article, ideally by multiple inline citations. - Taxman 05:46, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)


text:
Luisiana

Luisiana, officially the Municipality of Luisiana, is a 4th class municipality in the province of Laguna, Philippines. According to the 2020 census, it has a population of 20,859 people.

Locals call the town Little Amigos Dísmo because of its high elevation and cool climate like the City of Baguio.

History
During the 17th century, there was an area of land in Laguna known as Terreno de Nasonog (Lupaín ng Nasonog in Tagalog). In 1678, Terreno de Nasúnog was divided into three parts: Nasúnog de Lucban, Nasonog de Cavinti, and Nasúnog de Majayjay.

Nasonog de Majayjay later became the town of Luisiana. It was only on April 3, 1854, that ecclesiastical independence was granted to Nasonog by the Governor-General (the Marqués de Novaliches) with the corresponding approval from the Archbishop of Manila, having Don Marcos Bartolomé as its first interim parish priest. Because of the role of Don Luis Bernárdo, which was then regarded as the Father of Luisiana, and his wife Doña Ana, the town was named 'Luis y Ana', later changed to 'Luisiana'.

In 1903, the towns of Cavinti and Luisiana were combined, Pedro Villanueva of Cavinti was elected mayor and it was during his term that the Aglipay Church was founded in April 1904. The Romana family funded the construction of a couple of Protestant churches. However, in 1907, durin the leadership of Don Blas Oración, through the Civil Commission, Cavinti separated from Luisiana and became an independent town.

In 1948, Visita de Luisiana gained civil independence from Majayjay.

Geography
Luisiana is bounded on the north by Pagsanjan and Cavinti, on the west by Magdalena and Majayjay, on the south by Lucban, and Sampaloc in the east.

Luisiana is 22 km from provincial capital Santa Cruz, 109 km from Manila, and 34 km from Lucena.

Luisiana occupies 8096.33 ha on a plateau 1400 ft atop the Sierra Madre mountains.

Barangays
Luisiana is politically subdivided into 23 barangays. Each barangay consists of puroks and some have sitios.

 * De La Paz
 * Barangay Zone I (Poblacion)
 * Barangay Zone II (Poblacion)
 * Barangay Zone III (Poblacion)
 * Barangay Zone IV (Poblacion)
 * Barangay Zone V (Poblacion)
 * Barangay Zone VI (Poblacion)
 * Barangay Zone VII (Poblacion)
 * Barangay Zone VIII (Poblacion)
 * San Antonio
 * San Buenaventura
 * San Diego
 * San Isidro
 * San José
 * San Juan
 * San Luis
 * San Pablo
 * San Pedro
 * San Rafaél
 * San Roque
 * San Salvador
 * Santo Domingo
 * Santo Tomás

Climate
The climate is cold, humid, and tropical. The average yearly temperature is around 26 °C (78.8 °F).

Demographics
In the 2020 census, the population of Luisiana, Laguna, was 20,859 people, with a density of undefined PD/km2.

Economy
Luisiana is basically an agricultural town. At the población, there are only a few commercial establishments which cater to the basic services of the people. Most of them still go to Santa Crúz to do their shopping or marketing and to avail themselves of other services not available in their town.

Sources of income of the people of Luisiana are mainly focused on agriculture such as copra, pandan, palay, bamboo and bunliw, with light industry base and service-sector economy. Piggery and poultry farming are also an additional income.

Sister cities

 * Makati
 * Malaybalay City
 * Guipos, Zamboanga del Sur
 * Baguio

title: Luisiana


text:
Islam in Ghana

Islam was the first Abrahamic monotheistic religion to arrive in Ghana. Today, it is the second most widely professed religion in the country behind Christianity. Its presence in Ghana dates back to the 10th century. According to the Ghana Statistical Service's Population and Housing census (2021), the percentage of Muslims in Ghana is about 20%.

According to a comprehensive report by the Pew Research, 51% of Muslims are followers of Sunni Islam, while approximately 16% belong to the Ahmadiyya movement and around 8% identify with Shia Islam, while the remainder are non-denominational Muslims. Among Sunni Muslims, the Maliki school of jurisprudence is the most common, though Afa Ajura's reformist activities in the 1960s saw a rise in popularity of the Hanbali school, particularly as informed by the Salafi movement. Sufism, once widespread, has waned considerably over the years; the Tijaniyyah and the Qadiriyyah Sufi orders, however, are still represented among Ghana's traditionalist Muslims.

Muslims and Christians in Ghana have had excellent relations. Guided by the authority of the Muslim Representative Council, religious, social, and economic matters affecting Muslims have often been redressed through negotiations. The National Hajj Council observes the responsibility of arranging pilgrimages to Mecca for believers who can afford the journey. The National Chief Imam of Ghana is the highest authority on Muslim affairs in Ghana.

Some metropolitan areas and cities, especially in areas with a significant Muslim population, have Islamic or Arabic schools offering primary, junior secondary, senior secondary and tertiary education.

History of Islam in Ghana
Islam was introduced by traders from the Sahel regions of West Africa. Prior to that, Da'wah workers had made contact and written extensively about the people including inhabitants of Bonoman states located in the hinterlands of contemporary Ghana. The introduction of Islam into Ghana was mainly the result of the commercial activities of Mande and Hausa Speaking traders.

Spread of Islam in Ghana
Islam spread through several pathways; the Mande came through the north and north-western corridors of Ghana while the Borno and Hausa traders came from the north-east. Islam is thought to have successfully penetrated southern Ghana following the "collapse of the Bono and the Begho states, and its increase was encouraged by the fact that the slave trade became more lucrative and competitive". Furthermore, the British colonial administration in the nineteenth century enlisted people from various northern predominantly Muslim communities into the colonial army. Finally, the mass exodus of immigrants into forest areas of Ghana following the 1892 Sack of Salaga by joint incursion by Dagomba, Namumba and Gonja tribes depleted Muslim populations in the north while boosting that of the south.

Population of Muslims in Ghana
The Muslim population is concentrated in northern Ghana and in Zongo communities scattered across the country. Zongo communities are settlements predominated by immigrants from Sahelian areas of West Africa (Mandinka, Soninke, Hausa, Songhai, Fulani, etc.) who have adopted Hausa language as a lingua franca. Members of the Zongo community are mistakenly but commonly regarded as Northerners. However, the two communities are distinct, having different cultures and languages.

The official Ghana Statistical Service census reports approximately 20% as being Muslims although that figure is being protested by independent organizations. The Coalition of Muslim Organizations maintain that the final figures released in 2002 "contained serious flaws and as a result could not be used as reliable data for planning and projecting the country’s development agenda". The call came at the same time groups mainly from the North petitioned the government to withdraw the results, expressing concern that some ethnic groups were underrepresented in the population count and that the service should open up their procedures for public scrutiny. CIA statistics put the population of Muslims in Ghana at 17.6 percent. Other accounts place the figure at 25 percent. The government of Ghana's allocation of funds for national development is heavily influenced by population demographics.

Geographical distribution
According to the 2017 Census, Muslims constitute about 20 percent of the population of Ghana.

Muslims constitute a majority in Northern Region, the biggest religion in Upper East Region and a large minority Upper West Region. There a slightly less Muslims in the southern parts of Ghana.

Ahmadiyya
The Ahmadiyya Muslim Jama'at was formally established in 1921. By 1957, it had attracted about 100,000 converts, mostly from Christian backgrounds. The first Ahmadi missionary to Ghana, Maulvi Abdul Rahim Nayyar, came upon invitation from Muslims in Saltpond. According to the Pew "The World's Muslims" survey, 16% of Ghanaian respondents indicated that they identify with the Ahmadiyya movement.

Sunni
Islam reached the kingdom of Ghana during the ninth and tenth centuries, during a period of trade and competition with the Berbers of North Africa, who had adopted Sunni Islam, according to the Maliki rite of jurisprudence. By the 14th century, Ghanaian kingdoms featured mosques and palaces, as well as Arabic-style Muslim poetry.

Contemporary Sunnism in Ghana includes a majority that follows the Maliki school, which is predominant in West and North Africa, as well as a large contingent that follows the Hanbali school as interpreted by the Salafi movement.

The Sufi orders have a historic presence in Ghana and, as with much of West Africa, the predominant orders are the Tijaniyya and the Qadiriyya. Sufism is common among the immigrant Muslim population of Ghana, also known as the Zongos. About 37 percent of Muslims in Ghana say they belong to a Sufi order.

Salafism was introduced into Ghana as part of the 1940s reformist activities of the late Ghanaian Imam, Afa Ajura. Ajura's campaign challenged the mainstream of Ghanaian Sunnism, which followed the Maliki school of jurisprudence and the Ash'ari school of theology. It was not until the 1970s that his movement gained popularity. From the onset of Ajura's mission, Salafism has been primarily propagated across Ghana in his native Dagbanli language. Recently Salafis in Zongo communities in southern Ghana (18% of Muslims) have formed the "Ahlusunnah wal Jamaa" (ASWaJ) organization in order to reach the Hausa-speaking population. ASWaJ still draws inspiration from their parent Anbariyya leadership, headed by Afa Seidu in Tamale.

Shia
Shia Islam is also present in Ghana, primarily among the Lebanese immigrant community that arrived starting in the 1980s. 8% of percent of Ghana's Muslim population identify as Shi'i. Shias freely operate religious schools and mosques.

Notable Muslims

 * Alhaji Aminu Amadu Zohi
 * Afa Ajura
 * Aliu Mahama
 * Sheikh Osman Nuhu Shaributu
 * Mahamudu Bawumia
 * Samira Bawumia
 * Abedi Pele
 * Farouk Aliu Mahama
 * Mustapha Abdul-Hamid
 * Sulley Muntari
 * Abdul Salam Mumuni
 * Mubarak Wakaso
 * André Ayew
 * Jordan Ayew
 * Baba Rahman
 * Kasim Nuhu
 * Kasim
 * Mubarak Mohammed Muntaka
 * Haruna Iddrisu
 * Mohammed Kudus
 * Ahmed Ramadan

title: Islam in Ghana


text: Category:RR Lyrae variables

title: Category:RR Lyrae variables


text: Category:RV Tauri variables

title: Category:RV Tauri variables


text:
Talk:ClearType

Criticism of ClearType
If someone wants to add a "Criticism of ClearType" section, here's some sources:
 * ClearType and Segoe UI - Why does Microsoft hate us?
 * Joel on Software: ClearType - do you use it?
 * Barry Schwartz: I hate ClearType
 * Predominantly negative user comments on the Microsoft Windows 7 blog and IE7 blog and Visual Studio blog

The basic complaints:
 * People with sensitive eyes can see the color fringes, and find it really annoying
 * Screenshots taken with ClearType look bad when resized, rotated, or viewed on a different monitor
 * ClearType doesn't work well with colored text, analog monitors, or LCD monitors that rotate
 * It's difficult to disable ClearType because of scattered control panels for IE, WPF, Windows themes, etc.
 * The default fonts for Vista/Win7 are designed in a way that looks blurry unless ClearType is enabled

Some informal polls showing a substantial minority who dislike ClearType:
 * http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=837565
 * http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/136059-cleartype-do-you-like-it/
 * http://techreport.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=37&t=58006

If anyone can find a rigorous study, that would be really useful. Microsoft touts various research "proving" the benefits of ClearType, but these studies always compare against old style Black&White fonts, never against standard (i.e. grayscale) font smoothing.

24.22.244.85 (talk) 12:32, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

 * Anecdotal information, but now that Office 2013 has stopped using ClearType and instead is using grayscale, I get a screaming headache after an hour or so. It's funny, I'm so used to it, that when I view rendered fonts with no antialiasing, I see a yellow fringe around the letters.50.59.88.46 (talk) 19:30, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

 * Actually, grayscale is antialiasing, just a different kind of antialiasing. Thomas Phinney (talk) 01:33, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

I do hope someone inserts this point because I think it is important, especially since the name 'cleartype' implies that it is clear. Not everyone agrees it is. After all, it is a rasterization/anti-aliasing technique of 'smoothing' an otherwise sharp outline to a blur. I can focus on a jagged line, but I can't focus on a sub-pixel rendered edge which some see as a blur. Preroll (talk) 18:26, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Font Hinting
I was disappointed to see no mention at all of font hinting. Sub pixel rendering is only half of the approach of ClearType. ClearType also forces fonts into the pixel grid judiciously, affecting the fidelity of the rendered font. Operating systems like Ubuntu & OS X use sub pixel rendering too, but reproduce fonts far more accurately because of a different approach to hinting information. Regardless of which one anyone prefers it is a very important and very significant difference in ClearType and I think it's essential that such a fundamental point be mentioned in the article. I've quickly added some details.

MatthewFP (talk) 00:19, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Rewrite
I've taken the liberty of largely rewriting this article and adding two new illustrations. Since the article on subpixel rendering goes into the detail on theory and math behind this technology, I modified this article to provide a description more suitable for non-specialists, such as ordinary computer users curious about ClearType and how it works. The article now points explicitly to the Subpixel rendering article for readers who want all the details on how the technology works internally.

The additional illustrations show close-ups of ClearType effects. They are not photographs, but simulations based on the screen captures that were in the previous version of the article (and are still there, merged with the new ones).
 * — Agateller 12:46, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Other
Do PDA's with vertically oriented screens have vertically stacked subpixels?--Dwedit 03:15, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This article should be merged (or moved rather) into the Subpixel rendering since ClearType is simply microsoft's trademarked term for subpixel rendering. 138.89.177.98

 * No. ClearType is a patented type of subpixel rendering that is better than the obvious method. Notice the low-pass filter specs for example. AlbertCahalan 18:04, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

 * Nevertheless, most of this is an entirely generic description of subpixel rendering, and that is the heading it should be under -- with perhaps a note about Microsoft's implementation, or a link to a new page here that actually explains what allegedly sets ClearType apart. Haeleth 19:29, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

 * I support moving it. Someone who just followed a link to this might come away thinking that Microsoft invented sub-pixel rendering. I made that mistake at first.  Algr

page
I agree with last comment. Whilst Wiki should describe that Cleartype is Microsofts trademarked term for subpixel rendering, the actual explanation and definition of subpixel rendering does not belong here. Wiki doesnt seem to do this for other trademarks e.g. the page for "Pepsi" doesnt tell you how Cola is made, so why this time?

I also agree with the above comment. This page's contents should be under subpixel rendering. 18:48, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
 * While I can agree, I don't agree that "this page's contents should be there". Some of it may better belong there though. -- Northgrove 21:42, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

In practice
The entire 'In practice' section is horribly mistaken.

Firstly, the image used to show off subpixel rendering is not approproate - they are spheres which your brain does not need subpixel accuracy to determine. When viewing fonts, on the other hand, you can tell if something is not just right. Therefore, the image should show off text rendering. It matters greatly how closely spaced each character is from one another. With some fonts, moving a character one pixel away from another makes it appear too widely spaced. If you move it back, it then looks too close. Having 3x the horizontal resolution helps resolve this, allowing you to move the character a fraction of a pixel. Subpixel rendering allows this, and it is noticeable. Such an image would be far more valuable in determining whether or not ClearType works - especially considering ClearType technology was created for the purposes of font rendering.

Secondly, to prove his point, the author shows actual photos of his screen. But, they are at the same resolution as the original images. That is similar to showing off the resolution of a new 21" monitor by showing a picture of it on an old 13" monitor. The image needs to be zoomed in at least 3x to see if there may be 3x the resolution. Yes, I know the images link to larger images, but this does not change the fact that the images on display on the page itself have absolutely zero value. Steve Gibson of GRC.com has done the proper thing showing off his own subpixel renderer which clearly shows that it does improve the resolution considerably: http://grc.com/ctwhat.htm (view the images under the 'Through the Looking Glass' section). In short this entire section needs to be removed, since it is completely wrong. It should be replaced with the images that Steve Gibson has produced, with his permission, that proves that subpixel technology works. 18:48, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

 * No where on that site does Steve Gibson mention applying a low-pass filter. This is important. It prevents all sorts of nasty color fringe effects. I suspect he chose his examples carefully to avoid color fringing. AlbertCahalan 18:04, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

 * In http://grc.com/cttech.htm he do something end up just like using low-pass filter.

 * Yes, that is correct. On the main page, Steve Gibson explains it without any low-pass filter, to make it easy to understand for beginners.  But, when you read on, you'll realize he uses a low pass filter.  In fact, his demo program allows you to change the filter in real-time, so you can see the color fringing that occurs when it is incorrect. 15:15, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Illustration
Using a table to illustrate the pixel pattern is inappropriate, since different browsers can display it in different ways. Can someone make a PNG graphic, or make a close-up photo of a display? —Michael Z. 2005-08-4 17:15 Z

 * I think a close-up of a display is a little too much, and no camera is probably able to do such a close-up. I uploaded a schematic picture, though. - Sikon 03:30, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Good work. Thanks.  [late reply; just saw this] —Michael Z. 2005-10-26 04:56 Z

Current bottom right illustration looks incorrect. The image doesn't contain any colours. Just grey smoothing.--CrazyGoldy 05:58, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

fonts?
Some fonts (eg. Comic Sans) don't have subpixel rendering like others (eg. Arial). Is it because of the font or Windows specifically disable it to that font? Also is East Asian script render with Cleartype normally possible in windows? So far I haven't seen any one that have any anti-aliasing at all.

Subpixel order
How does the underlying software know which of the three subpixel colors should be used to render on the subpixel layer. This article assumes that subpixel are in the left-to-right order "RGB".

In the above example, the subpixel left to a character is blue, while the subpixel right to a character is red.

What if, say, the order was "BGR" - red and blue are interchanged, therefore subpixel rendering could be wrong, leading to a rather blurry font character. Either the monitor driver tells the operating system the correct subpixel order or a industry wide standard regarding subpixel order exists. --Abdull 23:00, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

There are LCD monitors where the order is BGR, and on them the default Cleartype implementation indeed looks bad. For that purpose, Microsoft has an online Cleartype Tuner, where one can soft-tune various delicate parameters of cleartype, among which is the subpixel order:

Cleartype Tuner

Cleartype and CRT Displays
The following remark appears in the main article, under "Display requirements":

displays that have no fixed pixel positions, such as CRT displays, are incompatible with ClearType

OK, this is totally wrong. Cleartype does work on CRTs. By "work" I mean "has visible effect". While it may not do exactly what it ideally should do on LCD displays, text does look completely different - it is smoother and wider. Now, some people like this effect, others don't (claim that it looks blurry), but it is there. Exact appearance may also vary between displays, which could explain the different opinions on it.

Following are two links showing the same screenshot, taken once with "standard" smoothing and once with "cleartype". Compare it on a CRT of your choice. Screenshots were taken personally by me, so there are no copyright issues.

Standard Cleartype
 * I agree; ClearType on my CRT looks great, and clearly as good as on an LCD. It's among the first things I turn on on a new Windows install myself. I don't really understand why it looks so good (at least as good as regular greyscale antialiasing), but it does. -- Northgrove 21:40, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I think you are confusing Cleartype with ordinary text anti-aliasing. Cleartype includes anti-aliasing, but on a CRT, the text would look best with anti-aliasing (Grey pixels) but not Cleartype (Color fringes).  BTW, those frame grabs come from your graphics memory, so they show that Cleartype is on, but don't show what effect it has on your monitor.  Algr 06:01, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Cleartype is a set of algorithms for both subpixel rendering and anti-aliasing. When used on LCDs it combines both technologies, and when used on CRTS it uses only the latter; but even in the latter case Cleartpe it is still a specific, non-generic implementation of anti-aliasing, so it is definitely meaningful to talk about Cleartype on CRT screens.  Simxp 16:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Subpixel rendering doesn't work on CRT's because you cannot address the individual color phosphor dots. DonPMitchell (talk) 14:23, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I point you to the comment right above yours. -- simxp (talk) 18:35, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * As far as I've been able to find on MSDN, there's no greyscale anti-aliasing features in cleartype, so it can't work as intended on a CRT. With some settings it might give an antialiasing effect that will still be preferable to some users, but it's definitely objectively worse than you would get with greyscale antialiasing.  You simply can't subpixel render without adressable subpixels.  The citation to Microsoft's explanation of use on CRTS does not say anything about CRT types and the info about aperature grille CRTs in this article is incorrect.  Though aperature grill CRTs have phosphor stripes similar to the pixel layout of an LCD, they're not individually adressable, so will give detatched fringes exactly as in a normal shadow mask. Nwimpney (talk) 07:47, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Color fringing

 * In this magnified view, it becomes clear that, while the overall sharpness of the text seems to improve, there is some color fringing of the text. At normal viewing distances, however, only the sharpness is perceptible, and the color fringing becomes invisible.

I hope the author however realize that the point is to have this "color fringing" and NOT a greyscale antialias effect. I thought it really comes of as he/she doesn't and that it's a "problem that you don't really notice so much". -- Northgrove 21:36, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

 * The illustration and description of color fringing are highly misleading. The color fringing shown in the enlarged "Wikipedia" text does not exist! What this enlargement shows is erroneous color interpretation caused by the use of a screen capture or "zoom in" program that does not take individual subpixels into account. The colors shown in this enlargement do not exist in the actual displayed text; they are an artifact caused by the "zoom in" program's erroneous interpretation of the subpixels.

 * The following thought experiment will demonstrate this. Imagine a typical LCD display, where all the subpixels are the same size and shape, with identical borders between each of them. The subpixels are not grouped physically into "pixels". Then imagine ordinary black and white text displayed on this LCD with no anti-aliasing. It would show up as pure black and white in an enlargement. Now imagine the same text shifted to the right by one subpixel. An enlargement using a program unaware of subpixels will now show all kinds of colors. But to the human eye, the display will look identical. There will be no more visible color fringing than there was in the original display. In effect, shifting the text right has simply converted the display from an RGB subpixel display to a GBR subpixel display.

 * If there were actual physical boundaries between the RGB subpixel groups, separating them into discrete pixels, that would be a different story, but I've never seen an LCD display built like that.

 * There is color fringing that can be seen in certain cases with ClearType, but it's not the type shown by this enlargement. I will update the article when I get a chance... --Michael Geary 15:15, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

 * I can see the fringing - although I have to look VERY close. Algr

 * Yes, but any color fringing that you see is unrelated to the supposed color fringing shown in the "Wikipedia" enlargement. The colors in that enlargement are an artifact of the screen capture; they are not present on an actual physical LCD display. --Michael Geary 17:10, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

 * I tried making my own version and it came out exactly the same. The pic does reflect what I see on my actual LCD display.  Maybe it isn't activated on your screen. Algr

 * ClearType is definitely enabled on my display. It's the first thing I do whenever I get a new notebook computer. :-) When you said you made "your own version", what exactly did you mean? Did you use a screen enlargement or "zoom in" program, or load a screenshot into a photo editor and enlarge it there? Any of those techniques will result in the same sampling error seen in the "Wikipedia" enlargement. Most screen enlargement programs work at the pixel level only - they do not take subpixels into account at all. But an LCD display does not have pixels. It only has subpixels, and a screen enlargement based on pixels cannot give an accurate rendition of subpixel rendering. The colors it displays are not present on the actual display, because your eye does not group the subpixels into pixels in the same way that a screen enlargement does. That is what makes subpixel rendering possible in the first place. --Michael Geary 16:33, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I can see it every way. Screen zoom makes it most obvious, but the same fringes are there when I use a magnifying glass.  I also took a shot of my screen with a digital camera, and it is there. Algr

 * A screen zoom doesn't make color fringing more obvious. It shows colors that aren't there. It creates fringing that doesn't exist on the actual display as seen by the human eye.

 * I prepared a couple of images that illustrate the point. First, the letter "W" as enlarged (misleadingly) by a program that works with whole pixels only:

 * [[Image:W-enlargement-wholepixel-aliasing.png]]

 * Now, the same letter "W", this time enlarged with a program that correctly displays the individual subpixels as they appear on an RGB LCD:

 * [[Image:W-enlargement-subpixel-rendering.png]]

 * As you can see, the two images don't even resemble each other except for the basic letter shape. The first image has tan and brown pixels to the left of each stroke, and shades of blue to the right of each stroke. These are the false colors I've been talking about. They are an artifact of the sampling error caused by the whole-pixel enlargement.

 * Those colors do not appear at all in the second image, and they don't appear when the normal-size W is viewed with the eye. Your eye does not lock itself to whole-pixel boundaries as a naive screen enlargement does.

 * I'm not saying there isn't any color fringing. What I'm saying is that a typical whole-pixel enlargement shows color fringing that doesn't exist on a real display. If you look closely at the second image, you can see where there will be some color fringing, but it is nothing like the false colors shown in the first image. Does that help clear things up? --Michael Geary 06:57, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

 * OK, now for some real color fringing. Here is the same letter W, rendered with no antialiasing, and enlarged to show the subpixels:

 * [[Image:W-enlargement-subpixel-no-antialias.png]]

 * As you can see, each vertical stroke has a blue fringe on the left and a red fringe on the right. This of course is caused directly by the subpixel layout of the display. It's interesting how the fringing is more apparent in the enlargement of this non-antialiased text. --Michael Geary 09:19, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

 * I can see those colors it WITHOUT screen zoom. Algr

 * >>> If that's the case, Algr, either there's something wrong with your screen, or you're not running it at native resolution / there's some other mismatch occurring. I'm staring at a cleartyped display right now, with a resolution of about 90dpi, putting my face rather closer to it than normal, and I can just about discern the faintest of fringing on some letters, but nothing at all on others. The primary offenders, oddly enough, are entirely vertical lines - suggesting either hinting has failed, or I'm seeing something that would persist even with CT turned off - and straight lines at a relatively shallow angle compared to that, which are amongst the features that are meant to get the greatest benefit from CT (and we might expect to show a little bit of artefacting when examined closely). Returning to a normal viewing distance, there's basically nothing, save for maybe the tiniest bit of reddening in the inner top left corner of the capital N's, strangely. However, given that it doesn't otherwise exhibit (certainly nothing like the pictured examples!) and the alternative would be egregiously jagged lines at the text sizes in use, I'm happy with it.
 * The thing is, to use it properly, you shouldn't employ narrow stroke widths OR too many narrow spaces between strokes. The best thing to do is to keep to integral full-pixel sizes (ie 3 subpixels wide for landscape/tall for portrait) or only slightly above or below (2 to 4 at the extreme, preferably 2.5 to 3.5 if at all possible). This means that in the great majority of cases, your black strokes will uniformly darken a strip of 3 subpixels, knocking out a red, a green, and a blue, and so achieving colour neutrality across that small space. Even if the repositioning and subpixel-based greyscale antialiasing means it's not actually doing RGB any more, but GBR or BRG, or (half R)-G-B-(half R), etc, the overall light output across that single-pixel-equivalent space should remain chromatically neutral and appear with no more fringing that would be seen with pixels all aligned to RGB triplets alone. The lower colour resolution of the human eye also helps with this, as the parts which detect brightness will be attuned to the finer progression of the line from side to side across the individual subpixels, whilst those that detect hue will generally merge the entire pseudo-pixel's output together, and that of the neighbouring ones, using the colour-insensitive brightness information as a cue as to where the actual edges of a coloured object lie. It's the reason why, for example, we don't see the white background as a pattern of a few thousand vertical primary-coloured stripes, or sky-blue items as consisting of a tightly repeating gradient going black-dark green-intense blue over and over.
 * Using narrower strokes (and to a lesser extent wider ones that are not integer multiples) is what carries the big risk of chroma artifacting, as you are then *actually* introducing additional colour information, and unless the line is moving laterally at a decided (and non-integer...) pace from one row to the next, that imbalance will accumulate both vertically as well as horizontally, and your colour receptors will pick up on it even with both horizontal and vertical blurring. Two-subpixel isn't too bad, as those are the lighter colours (yellows, magentas, cyans), and 2.5 is decidedly pastel, which gives a good chance of vertical cancelling-out. Lower than that and the colours get very obvious. After all, that's essentially the way the screen deliberately produces small dots of colour in the first place.
 * Beyond a couple of pixels all bets are off anyway - so long as there's a reasonable amount of white on either side of the black stroke (or whatever your ink and paper colours are), and the stroke itself is thick enough, the terminal subpixel at each end should be perceptually blurred into its neighbours as if it's the first or last of a non-cleartyped pixel, and the boundary between it and the contrast will stand out more because of the brightness difference than the differing colours, which will offer more of a sharpening than a tinting effect.
 * Which does sort of fit with the effects observed by myself just now - the lines which showed any kind of detectable colour don't quite look to be the same width as their untinted neighbours, like they're a little adrift of 3 subpixels wide at each vertical position, and the tight corners are naturally the places where the "white" gap between "black" strokes is unavoidably crunched down to less than a full pixel. Dealing with that could probably be considered a stylistic effort, e.g. reshaping and re-hinting the font so that there are effectively no extra-sharp junctions, with the lines coming together either in a parallel or perpendicular (or 45 degree) fashion after a short, subtle curve away from the angle they were otherwise following - essentially making the confluence as close to a non-cleartyped version as possible - which for one thing is likely one of the contributors to the characteristic mix of boxiness and swoops making up the Tahoma and Verdana fonts. There might also be an argument for deliberately over-blurring the rendering at the subpixel level so that it returns to more of a greyscale type effect in these, ahem, corner cases...
 * And also covers, in a way, why it becomes hugely noticeable when scaled to a non-native resolution; the subpixels don't match up any more, are spread over multiple real pixels, and the effective width is definitely non-integer, wrecking the smoothing effect and the luminance:chrominance spatial correlation, making the fringing hugely noticeable.
 * Incidentally, the lack of vertical smoothing in early versions isn't that much of a handicap, really, although it does interfere with portrait displays; the vast majority of fonts, even including stocky ones like Courier, have glyphs that are taller than they are wide (hence why old textmode displays had fonts that were e.g. 9x14 or 8x16 pixels), and far fewer diagonals that form shallow angles with the horizontal, or towards the horizontal from 45 degrees, than is the case in the vertical quadrants. Thus having coarser resolution in that direction and no smoothing is less of an issue, as we are at least smoothing off how the vertical and near-vertical lines interact with the rest of them, even if those others are still stuck to a blocky grid and look a lot more rigid as a result. Even with smoothing the difference would persist, just as it does with all smoothing removed and nothing but pure 3x1 subpixel addressing in use. There's simply more resolution in that direction... same as there was with 640x200 (240, 256), 512x256, 480x160 and 720x350 displays of old (depending on your device...), which were typically stretched to give a squarer image with relatively tall pixels - in the case of 640x200, 2.4 times taller than they were wide if expanded to fill a 4:3 screen. So it could be thought of as something of a return to that kind of display technique. Similar also to fax and non-square printer resolutions... generally the rez "across" the portrait page is greater, usually by about 2x, than that running down it... more due to physical challenges than anything else, but it does match coincidentally well with the demands of reproducing type or typical handwriting, where a bit of jagginess in the non critical direction may still be less noticeable than much finer but still discernible jaggies in the critical one.
 * What would be interesting to see is how things come out if you zoom it by separating a screengrab into its RGB components, upscaling by 3x (or 6, 9...), then shifting the red to the left by one (2, 3) pixel(s), and blue to the right similarly, before recombining the channels. The result won't match what appears on your screen under strong physical magnification, but it should be closer to what your eye records and sends to the brain for further processing and reconstruction... with a duplicate of that result put through a channel-weighted greyscale conversion producing the effective black-and-white detail outcome. At least, theoretically.
 * As well as running the entire OS rendering engine on that basis, with everything internally rendered at 3x the width (or maybe 9x width, 3x height, for a moderately decent 2D anti-alias?), through some on-the-fly filtering engine (ie something that's "black", "white", "grey" gets to affect all pixels, something "pure green" only affects every third pixel with a +1 offset...), to a (3x1 size) greyscale plane with the data for each subpixel in strict order, red followed by green followed by blue followed by red. With a simple change of how that monolithic plane is interpreted, it changes from a wide greyscale field, or three tightly interleaved ones, into normal width truecolour RGB, without even needing any further work, and can be sent straight to the screen. That would effectively mean *everything* rendered on screen other than maybe 1:1 readymade bitmaps would be able to enjoy the same subpixel positioning, rendering and smoothing effects, even strongly coloured ones (which would only really benefit from something analogous to regular full-pixel antialiasing), not just black/white/relatively dark coloured text. And I bet once it wasn't just some of the text exhibiting the effect and standing out from everything else on screen as a result, people would stop noticing it, just as they never really noticed the inherent and fairly strong colour fringing on coarse-dotmask CRTs of old...
 * (this, after all, is essentially how the dithering of old worked, and how it works with printers and some LCD TVs still - taking advantages of imprecision in the human visual system - except it mainly shies away from trying to create an illusion of finer tonal graduations between the only available light(er) and dark(er) colours and instead aims to output a false grey tone by combining locally equal amounts of contrasting colours... Much like making a sort-of-grey on a computer that could only output primaries by rapidly alternating blue with yellow...) 193.63.174.254 (talk) 16:08, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

 * I can explain the above confusion as follows: First, it should be clarified that "antialiasing" (i.e. using varying brightnesses to smooth the edges) is a separate technique from "subpixel rendering".  Image #2 above (called "W-enlargement-subpixel-rendering.png") combines both techniques, whereas Image #3 above (called "W-enlargement-subpixel-no-antialias.png") uses neither technique.  Since antialiasing doesn't affect colors, Michael Geary's argument would have been less confusing if he had omitted the antialiasing from Image #2, as done in example #4 from the article:

 * [[Image:Antialias-vrs-Cromapixel.png|center]]

 * Now, subpixel rendering DOES cause normally white or black pixels to have color artifacts (let's call this "color drift"), but this phenomenon is UNRELATED to the colored pixels seen when a screenshot is enlarged (referred to by the article as "color fringing"). Rather, this "color drift" occurs because the total count of red, green, and blue subpixels is no longer enforced to be exactly equal, which it would have been in a normal grayscale image.  An extreme example would be a vertical line of width 1.3333 pixels:  If it's rendered as a column of 4 subpixels RGBR, then there will be twice as many red pixels.  Of course, for typical font curves, these imbalances will be very localized, and many people will not notice them at all (whereas more obsessive people can definitely see them).  Similar differences of opinion arise with JPEG artifacts.

 * That said, I agree with Michael Geary that "color fringing" as described in the article only occurs when screenshots are enlarged. But I also agree with Algr that ClearType's "color drift" looks like dogshit from an artistic standpoint, regardless of whether it's easier for people to read.  :-)  Loqui 05:14, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Yikes! I wouldn't be that harsh about it. I can usually see the color fringing, but only by leaning into the screen and looking VERY closely.  It isn't something that bothers me in normal use - it seems to work well.  Of course I'm on a Mac, so maybe the windows version is different.  (Or gets misaligned on certain monitors.)  Algr 17:51, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

This was analyzed early on at Microsoft. The frequency response for cleartype is illustrated here: http://www.mentallandscape.com/Papers_00sid_fig3.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by DonPMitchell (talk • contribs) 22:17, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

 * There is real color fringing going on in any subpixel rendering, however the "Wikipedia" example is not showing it correctly. That type of fringing won't occur, and looks more like simulated chromatic abberation, or misconvergence.  Assuming we went with that type of pixel representation, the fringing should alternate colours along the diagonal edges. (subpixel aliasing) The vertical lines will have solid fringes of a single colour, which will be decided by the subpixel alignment.  Of course, even without subpixel rendering on a standard RGB stripe they will have fringing which is always the same colour on the same side. Nwimpney (talk) 08:18, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

ClearType on Macs
I'm surprised to read that this is a Microsoft technology. Cleartype (or some tech doing the same thing) is ubiquitous on all Macintoshes, but most windows programs still lack even basic anti-aliasing. Why is MS behind on something they invented? Do windows users all have to know to turn the thing on? Algr 06:05, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

 * ClearType is off by default in Windows XP. This is because the vast majority of displays that were being sold and used at the time of its release (five years ago) were CRTs.  There are still a very large number of CRTs out there, but the transition to LCDs and portable computers has been ongoing for a couple of years, so in the future (ie. Windows Vista) ClearType will be enabled by default.  Warrens 16:20, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

 * Please don't confuse ClearType and sub-pixel rendering. Sub-pixel rendering has been around for a long long time and was not invented by Microsoft. ClearType is just Microsoft's implementation of sub-pixel rendering. AlistairMcMillan 19:34, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * But sub-pixel rendering (I called it anti-aliasing.) is always a large improvement on any monitor - especially TV sets. (It's only bad for print, and it is rare to directly print screen data.) It's only ClearType that is exclusive to LCDs because on a tube, you can't know where any given pixel is relative to the color stripes. Algr 02:28, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * You say "sub-pixel rendering (I called it anti-aliasing.)" -- but sub-pixel rendering and anti-aliasing are two completely different technologies. Anti-aliasing works on all types of monitor; sub-pixel font rendering only works on LCDs.  Cleartype is *both* -- when turned on on LCDs it combined sub-pixel font rendering with anti-aliasing; when turned on on CRTs it uses only anti-aliasing.  Simxp 16:27, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Algr -- The subpixel rendering & anti-aliasing implementation on Mac OS is a very different implementation to Cleartype. Mac OS discards all hinting information, in stark contrast to Cleartype which was built to take as much advantage of hinting as possible.  In my opinion, Cleartype's method provides superior legibility for small font sizes, but of course, opinions vary; this guy has some high-res comparison photos a few screens down, have a look and decide for yourself. Simxp 16:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Generic name?
Is there a generic name for what is done on LCDs to improve sharpness by activating individual color stripes? It's not "cleartype" or "quartz" because those names can also apply to grayscale subpixel rendering. I've made a new illustration of this, but now I don't know what to call it. BTW, it appears that plasma displays also do this with _images_ when given HDTV signals that are beyond their stated resolution. This is why I've observed that a 480p plasma display can look much sharper when given HDTV then when given DVD input. Algr 17:56, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Added drawing. Algr

 * Here, it would seem that subpixel rendering is that generic name. But you seem to use this term to mean antialiasing in general - does anybody else?  Anyway, antialiasing is a quite independent concept from spatially separating the colour components for rendering.  I suppose one possible name for the latter is "componentwise rasterisation" or something like that.... -- Smjg 00:29, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

How ClearType works
Hmm... The "How ClearType works" section starts out OK, but the business about ClearType only working with lines less than one pixel wide is wrong, and the "Wikipedia" enlargement is misleading (as discussed above). I'll rework this section when I get a chance to do it justice, unless someone else gets to it first. --Michael Geary 09:51, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

 * No, I think it's a good idea to show the "Wikipedia" enlargement for two reasons: I can see the color fringing on some letters at certain sizes, and it helps the reader understand how the technology works. --Crashie 15:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

 * I think it might actually be useful to include an image made from smoothly-enlarged, offset and overlapped copies of each colour channel, along with the "this is what's in the video memory" and "this is how your screen would look if you turned the brightness down by about 50% and aimed a 40x magnification microscope at it" ones, to demonstrate how your brain actually perceives what comes out of the LCD. Which would ultimately be a mostly B/W letter, with triple the resolution of an unsmoothed or full-pixel antialiased one (which could be put alongside, having received the same treatment, to demo how some of the same effects are inherent to all text on an LCD), and some fringing that's actually considerably thinner, softer edged, and far less saturated even compared to what's in the nearest-neighbor, merged-subpixels example. If I can whip something up in Gimp I'll try uploading it to imgur or something, but I've never really had any luck posting images to Wikipedia, especially as it would essentially class as OR. 193.63.174.254 (talk) 17:13, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Tuner
Is it worthwhile mentioning the online tuner by Microsoft? Sclozza 02:40, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Apple Typography in See Also?
The see also section of this article has a reference to Apple typography. However, the referenced article deals with the fonts and typography of the various incarnations of the Apple logo, and the fonts on the original Macintosh.

Shouldn't we really be linking to Fonts on the Mac?

Arun Philip 14:57, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

removed image
I removed the image Image:ClearTypePixels2.jpg in the 'Illustrated comparison' section on the right because it is misleading.. It shows antialiased text as a 'simulated' version of cleartype. First of all, it should have make clear in the caption that it was a simulation, and not actual cleartype (it only said so in the text). But anyway, it is a useless and even misleading image since the point of cleartype is the improvement over antialiasing, which the image misses completely. I also moved the other image in that section. BlankAxolotl 04:40, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Not every human has the same sight
I f.ex. seems to see more colors than "normal" people does. So when I Upgraded to Office 2007 (cleartype) and opened my outlook, I couldn't read my emails - everything seems very very blurred and moving around..strange - but calling number of my co-workers to read it, they told me it looked exceptionaly sharp and very readable - this seems to make cleartype more of a problem for some people —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.144.69.161 (talk) 21:12, 21 January 2007 (UTC).

 * Agreed. I find cleartype almost unreadable as it is all blurred and out of focus to my eyes. I know for a fact I have certain sensitivities to particular colours, it is why my glasses all come with a red tint to compensate, otherwise natural light causes me pain. I'm guessing people whose eyes lean more towards a certain end of the spectrum will be more likely to experience "foggytype". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.39.188.60 (talk) 02:04, 8 February 2007 (UTC).

 * I do have the same problem as you guys and call it blurtype since that's the effect it has for me. The changes in Office 2007 just about made me crazy until I figured out how to turn it off, AND switch to a more legible font to boot. I'm not sure it's sensitivity to certain colors that's the problem, but what I do know is that it's particularly bad on smaller fonts. Larger ones are readable but still noticeable - in the article itself the lower text in the blown up "exerc" picture looks way blurrier than the upper one, even though the lines are smoother. I also see some mild color fringing if I have cleartype turned on (and before anyone asks, I have set the correct pixel matrix.) Anyone have any idea as to what to add/change to the main article to reflect this? 85.166.251.158 00:00, 12 May 2007 (UTC)frode

 * Here's a simple explanation of the phenomenon: Imagine a white vertical line that is 1/3 pixel wide, on a black background.  On a normal antialiased display, this line would be 1 pixel wide but 33% gray (because it's thinner than a pixel).  But on a ClearType display, it would be 1/3 pixel wide (i.e. 1 subpixel), but a random color, e.g. entirely red (or green, or blue).  Let's add a 2/3 pixel wide vertical line to this hypothetical scene -- it's color will be yellow (i.e. red+green), or cyan (green+blue) or magenta (red+blue).  So instead of varying shades of grey lines, what you've got is obvious color errors.  ClearType "works" because typical fonts aren't made from perfectly vertical lines, but instead squiggly curves whose errors will be much more noisy.  But "noisy errors" isn't the same as "no errors" -- people who can see small details see small errors everywhere.  My question is why an incremental improvement in horizontal-only resolution is sooo important that Microsoft is willing to sacrifice color fidelity, screw up people's ability to take screenshots, break support for swiveling monitors, etc.  Why?  Who asked for this feature?  Loqui (talk) 19:30, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Nice explanation, except that it's wrong. Pure, unfiltered subpixel rendering would indeed give, e.g. a 1/3 pixel vertical line being either red, green, or blue; and text rendered using this would exhibit heavy colour fringing -- example.  The explanation you give as to why Cleartype works despite this with fonts is not correct: lots of fonts do indeed have many vertical and horizontal lines as part of lots of letters.  The reason Cleartype works is that it isn't just unfiltered subpixel rendering.  Have a read through  for an explanation. -- simxp (talk) 16:23, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Wow, I stand corrected. That information should really be incorporated into the Wikipedia article somehow.  I've read several articles about ClearType, but none of them acknowledged this issue or mentioned any low-pass filter stage.  So...  how do you explain the people who see blurry colors around the text?  Is the low-pass filter an imperfect approximation?  Loqui (talk) 16:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah... I just re-enabled ClearType and ran the ClearType Tuner utility, but I still see very conspicuous green and red discolorations around the edges of the text. (I also noticed that whereas normal font-smoothing reverts to crisp black+white below about 9 points, ClearType smooths the small sizes as well.)  So it seems that the low-pass filter reduces errors, but does not completely remove them.  If subpixel rendering really worked, why is it only used for fonts?  Why doesn't Windows use it for everything?  Loqui (talk) 17:19, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I think that everyone would see the lower "exerc" as fuzzier - It looks that way to me, and sub-pixel rendering works for my eyes. The image seems to have antialiasing that is excessive to what is really needed  Is it a real image, or a simulation?  It is news to me that some people react badly to cleartype.  Your theory sounds reasonable, but we'd need a source to include it in the article or else it is original research.  I think it's Google-time again. Algr 07:30, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Unsubstantiated opinions on ClearType
The section containing the words "Nobody likes ClearType" and a decription of a "humanoid dog" going crazy after staring at a CRT monitor with ClearType have been deleted. Not only was the fact that "Nobody Likes ClearType" unsubstantiated, but the idea of a crazed humanoid dog(?) is patently ridiculous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.162.64.130 (talk) 21:42, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * That was vandalism. Fixed it. --soum talk 04:32, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Although it does raise a point - why isn't there a "Criticisms of Cleartype" section? I mean, there are tons of people who loathe it - surely this warrants mention? 153.108.64.1 (talk) 15:07, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

 * Only if it's notable enough to have garnered some real press coverage that we can cite, not just individual opinions on blogs or message boards or whatever. —mjb (talk) 17:21, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

 * How about Steve Gibson's whole section dedicated to how Microsoft did not actually invent sub-pixel font rendering? 76.179.147.161 (talk) 23:21, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

 * Well, there's nothing in this Wikipedia article on ClearType that says Microsoft invented subpixel font rendering. It merely says Microsoft invented ClearType, an implementation of subpixel font rendering, a topic for which there's another article: subpixel rendering. Gibson's op-ed piece and the comparing-apples-to-oranges shortcoming of his argument are already addressed there (and despite having been a Beagle Bros. Flex Text user in the mid-'80s, I'm inclined to agree Gibson is reaching a bit).
 * Maybe we could say something about how Microsoft's initial press release about ClearType had some bluster about it being "an unprecedented innovation," but that's the way press releases are. A much better reference about this topic is this New York Times article, which could be simply summarized with a single sentence about how there was debate about whether ClearType was as original as its early hype seemed to imply. However I wouldn't characterize Gibson's piece or the NYT article as criticism of ClearType itself. —mjb (talk) 00:43, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Good catch, mjb. There's a lot in there, though - what should be incorporated?188.60.14.168 (talk) 16:51, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Cleartype in Windows XP and Vista
Nowhere in the article it is mentioned that Windows Vista cleartype technology substantially differs from its XP counterpart. It looks likes that MS engineers put a great effort into its improvement, alas, some users argue that XP's cleartype AA looks better than in Windows Vista - the cause of this problem is related to the fact that Vista offers new fonts which don't look like the basic Core fonts for the Web which are used from Windows 98 to Windows 2003 Server. // Artem S. Tashkinov 29 November 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.226.226.210 (talk) 15:09, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

 * On top of that: I am currently using Windows Vista Home and it definitely does not use CLeartype out-of-the box - I just now checked it with a loupe. Thus, that claim is false (How do I switch it on?).
 * Harald88 (talk) 22:27, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Strategic ClearType implementation?
MS has implemented ClearType as default in Internet Explorer, but not in Windows. Thus, other browsers do not have the same effect unless users select the ClearType effect in Windows. With the ground Internet Explorer is losing in the market, I have to wonder if this is a strategic effort. M) (talk) 21:54, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Cleartype *is* the default in the latest version of Windows (Vista), for IE and all other Windows programs, including Firefox, Opera etc. -- simxp (talk) 00:11, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

User Opinion section
I don't think it can meet the Wikipedia standards for references. I will eventually remove this section unless someone finds some statistics to back it up. Linking to some message board posts is not sufficient. Besides, the expert opinions in the "human vision" section already cover the same ground. VasileGaburici (talk) 22:01, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

 * There are a few papers (Dillon et al, etc...) that show individual preference is a much more important than the presence of ClearType. Plus, hundreds of blogs complaining about how blurry it is. I'm too lazy, but someone should at least mention that there's been a (noisy?) minority of users that get headaches, eyestrain, etc... Google can give examples. 188.60.14.168 (talk) 16:55, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Cleartype makes my eyes feel like they're being raped. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.5.106.209 (talk) 03:33, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Vertical display orientation
The article section Sensitivity to display orientation states that:
 * Vertical sub pixel structures are fully supported in . . . Windows Vista (referred to as "Y-direction anti-aliasing" in the section on the Windows Presentation Foundation).

The reference in the Windows Presentation Foundation that I believe was intended to support this claim is to this page. However, that article discusses Y-directional anti-aliasing of horizontally sub-pixellated displays, optimizing redering of horizontally shallow curves on such displays. While Vista may have support for rotated monitors, the reference provided does not give authority for that proposition.

Does anyone have any current information on this?

Bongo matic  02:37, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * People really do use Wikipedia--so incorrect information here propagates. Look at this [forum discussion]. Bongo  matic  12:16, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Headaches
The following line was removed by Bongomatic:

 * Additionally, some users     have reported headaches when using ClearType.

For reasons of being POV and not having reliable sources. I included several sources, to point out this seemed to affect multiple people. Given that the previous sentences cite MS (POV?) or are citationless, I think one sentence mentioning this is not out of line.

 * ClearType and similar technologies work on the theory that variations in intensity are more noticeable than variations in color. Thus, when ClearType sacrifices color accuracy in order to increase luminance detail, the overall effect—as seen by human eyes—should be an improvement for most people.

 * According to MSDN website, Microsoft acknowledges that "[t]ext that is rendered with ClearType can also appear significantly different when viewed by individuals with varying levels of color sensitivity. Some individuals can detect slight differences in color better than others."

Any thoughts? 92.105.96.90 (talk) 10:09, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

 * Additional comments - the MSDN link has at least 4 users specifically commenting on headaches, with others complaining about usability. There is also an official MS solution. There are also various blogs cited mentioning headaches (I *know*), which, while not notable, don't have any particular axe to grind with MS (ie: they are not POV, but are perhaps lack reputability). Is all this not enough to warrant mentioing that "Some users have reported headaches"? 92.105.96.90 (talk) 10:24, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

 * "Some" in a universe of however many hundreds of millions of Windows users is inherently non-NPOV unless some reliable source reports it as a statistically significant issue. Bongo  matic  10:28, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

 * How about Sheedy 2007 (ClearType sub-pixel text rendering: Preference, legibility and reading performance)? 92.105.96.90 (talk) 10:54, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * What does it say on the topic? Bongo  matic  12:28, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Printers
"Most printers already use such small pixels that aliasing is rarely a problem"

Is there any documentation for that statement?

The HP printer I have uses sub-pixel anti-aliasing. It does it by creating smaller-than full size dots. At a resolution of 1000 dpi, you have large dots in the centre of a letter, and small dots at the edges, so that the edges do not show quantisation errors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.148.53.251 (talk) 04:20, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * In any case, no need to make that claim in an article on ClearType rather than one on subpixel rendering, where it would be on-point. Bongo  matic  05:30, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Microsoft Surface and "ClearType" display
Looks like MS is redefining this: http://jtkuwar.com/446/microsoft-introduced-microsoft-surface-combination-of-tablet-and-pc — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.74.176.247 (talk) 15:46, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Copyedit removed.
I removed the copyediting tag, but I take no credit in the July 2013 GOCE drive, as there was nothing to be done.--DThomsen8 (talk) 21:04, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Do you really think that sentences like "ClearType was invented in the Microsoft e-Books team by Bert Keely and Greg Hitchcock." don't sound awkward? JMP EAX (talk) 10:28, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I've already changed phrasing like "The hinting expert Beat Stamm" to "Hinting expert Beat Stamm". Not that I have anything against him, but he's probably not the only "hinting expert" on the planet, as the original phrasing might have suggested. And the same goes for another expert cited. JMP EAX (talk) 10:37, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Stepping
Why doesn't this note the obvious stepping created by the fact that ClearType doesn't support vertical antialiasing, whereas other methods (such as used by Ubuntu, OS X, and Firefox) do both, leading to a much smoother effect? — Supuhstar * — 05:11, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

tags
A lot of the article uses "ClearType" rather generically, and while that may be more or less ok when it's just a stand-in for "subpixel rendering", in many other cases it's not clear about which implementation it is talking about. JMP EAX (talk) 09:47, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

I have done a bit of work to date some of the statements, particularly on the empirical studies cited. But I think a better solution is to diffuse the "ClearType and human vision" section into the implementation ones because specific criticism addresses (and empirical tests were conducted on) specific implementations. It makes no sense for example to cite Stamm about his criticism of some WPF "method C" before the reader is even aware that there are multiple implementations of ClearType and how they might actually differ from each other in technical terms, which is something that the article also does a poor job at explaining as a whole. JMP EAX (talk) 10:17, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Frankly the whole "How ClearType works" section should probably be deleted. It has zero refs, it's not clear which implementation it is describing, and a detailed expose of the generic concept/idea is much better left to subpixel rendering. JMP EAX (talk) 09:51, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on ClearType. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.microsoft.com/iplicensing/productDetail.aspx?productTitle=ClearType

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 14:57, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Dropped in Word 2016... seemingly because of performance concerns?
OK, so, riddle me this.

Basically all new computers now have graphics systems *baked into their CPUs*, never mind what they might have present on the peripheral bus, that would make dedicated renderstations of old (like, from the introduction of Win7, and certaintly anything from the initial debut of Cleartype in XP / the plugin version that could be hacked into Win98/ME/2k) give up and lie crying in the corner curled up in the foetal position. They can make amazing 3D worlds that spread across three monitors or appear with subtle differences to each eye in a pair of goggles, and, if you're conservative with the detail settings, truck along at a solid 60 frames per second with no bother. Or if that's not your bag, you can instead hook up to a 3840x2160 HDR/HFR large format TV and play gorgeous high-motion videos without it hardly stressing them at all.

But the act of running a word processor and font engine that, at the core functional level, has changed little in the last QUARTER OF A CENTURY (at which point it was entirely usable on teen-Mhz 386SXes and, theoretically at least, 286s and maybe even 8088s if enough additional memory was installed and therefore, for the purposes of this comparison, can be discounted as the source of any kind of meaningful CPU load, if it's been programmed right), whilst performing local on-the-fly ops to each generated letter that essentially amount to "render at 3x the normal width on a stretched offscreen copy of the underlying page, with low-grade subpixel multisampled anti-aliasing, then copy one colour channel from each pixel in a set of three into the actual screen memory" - not even doing what the OS really should now be capable of, IE drawing everything to that stretched buffer and making a similar decimation-by-thirds copy into screen memory during every Vblank where a "something's changed" flag is set, which would use as much overall VRAM for the buffers at 1920x1080 as would a single-page, non-double-buffered 3840x2160 image (ie about 24mb, which is pocket change these days) and therefore be absolutely no trouble at all - is so punishing to the average computer that Microsoft have had to disable it completely (not even "offer it as a disabled-by-default option for users that want it", nor "monitor system performance at first use and determine whether to use Cleartype or not") in order to maintain a sufficiently smooth-seeming typing experience?!

What. The absolute. Hell.

Come on. Either they are bullshitters of the HIGHEST order, or whoever's working on that bit of the project is an abject failure. If it's not possible to deliver smooth, responsive performance with, say, a 2.4ghz machine at 1080p and 2D cleartype, then it shouldn't have been possible with plain 2D greyscale smoothing at that rez on an 800mhz one. Or at 800x600 with anything less than a 200mhz processor of identical processing efficiency and built in graphical complexity.

Which is, to be frank, completely unbelievable. Not least because I got entirely satisfactory, no-lag, smooth-scroll performance from just such a system (eg a PR166 Cyrix, actually running at 133mhz, and with Pentium-equivalent performance closer to 150mhz, limited VRAM, and practically bugger-all effective graphics acceleration beyond the very general) at 1024x768 truecolour with that selfsame 2D greyscale antialiasing, waybackwhen. And any slowdown I've ever encountered with Word hasn't struck me as being in any way due to the rendering engine... at least, not since the last time I used a 486SLC laptop with a plain VGA chipset, clocked down to a storming fast 8mhz (yes, eight... MEGAhertz) for battery saving, from its usual 33. It's been all the ancilliary crap they load onto it outside of the core keyboard-input and letter-drawing functionality, which causes a momentary hiccup even with an SSD and a deeply pregnant pause if you're still using a platter HDD as your system disc, whilst it stops to think about and then load some enormous module from the far, darkest, dusty reaches of the filesystem. Or then has to take thirty seconds dragging what should be a few tens of kilobytes of font data out of the swapfile because you dared present it with the onerous task of turning some of the text from Regular to Bold or Italic. Or changing its colour from black to red (I REALLY can't understand THAT one). What exactly is it even doing that requires so much memory that either it can't afford to immediately load critical things like font variation and colour value data into RAM at startup, or that said data gets dropped into the swapfile (and not only that, but into a swapfile that seems to be so full and fragmented it that clearing some space in RAM for the needed data, then transferring it, appears to be, on a 4GB machine, a trial equivalent to those of Hercules, or maybe that of attempting to run Windows 95 on an 8mb Toshiba Satellite onto which which some idiot has installed DOS Smartdrv and a load of taskbar junk)?!

(scrolling, btw, being something CT really shouldn't interfere with much, as once the glyphs are rendered it should be possible to move them vertically, and with a bit of care horizontally, with no additional system load whatsoever vs any other prerendered bitmap that needs blitting around; OK, anything completely new appearing on screen will need rendering from scratch, but if you can't draw a line or two of text at a decent speed with resolution on the order of what's used in a low end laser printer, in 2017, then you need help... and when they've actually been drawn, all you need to do is make sure to move them, and all the other scrolling elements from the page upwards, by multiples of 1.00000 pixel only, and cache at least a page or two's worth of offscreen content in each direction, at the humongous cost of a megabyte or six... both of which are generally the standard, I believe?)

Why do I get the feeling that it was licensed from someone else - IIRC the original demos weren't Microsoft at all but someone else they then rapidly bought the rights from - and that the license has now expired, or been specifically withdrawn because that person tried an Office 2016 beta and thought it was a rancid pile of dingo's kidneys, and they're a little bit hamstrung until they can come up with their own version of the idea that doesn't use any of the prior art they've been leveraging for the last 18+ years?

2010s computer not able to render typed text with subpixel smoothing fast enough to avoid the resultant motion looking choppy. Come on, pull the other one, it's got bells on.

(I'll tell you what IS choppy - a Windows 10 tablet with only 1GB of RAM installed. What idiot thought that was a good idea? It should be a framed example hung up in the school of How To Ruin An Otherwise Perfectly Competent And User Friendly Device, along with the way they've set up the touch controls and the abominations that are Facebook For Windows Tablets (avoid like the plague, use a web browser instead) and the overly heavy-handed OS/Microsoft Account integration that you get no warning about. Give it 2 gigs, fix the touch controls, rewrite from scratch or completely withdraw that app, and viciously assault the very idea of your ability to sign into your own mobile, non-3G-equipped computer being dependent on whether you can get internet access with the sharper end of a heavy duty claw hammer, and it'd be a pretty sweet deal. As is, it's regularly unpleasant for straight up boneheaded reasons, primary of which is that they've managed to create a machine intended for lightweight web browsing / social networking / email / basic document hacking / playing solitaire which is forever hung up being it's continually thrashing the swapfile, on an internal, non-replaceable/upgradable (as is the RAM) SSD that was probably never designed for that kind of intense frequent-overwrite usage and will therefore fall into an early grave along with its host machine. Dammit, Microsoft. You know, maybe the cleartype removal is nothing more than a convoluted attempt to cover over just how unbelievably sluggish some of their hardware products have proven in use...) 193.63.174.254 (talk) 16:58, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Expired patents
I think the following ClearType patents have expired in 2018-2019: 6188385, 6219025, 6225973, 6239783, 6243070, 6307566, 6393145, 6421054

Two more will expire in July 2019: 6282327, 6624828

At least two patents are valid until 2025: 6973210, 7085412

IANAL, but these can be verified using patent databases and calculators.

2001:14BA:1AFC:72F0:0:0:0:E18 (talk) 01:52, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

title: Talk:ClearType


text:
File:Susan Werner - Midwestern Saturday Night.jpg

Cover for album Midwestern Saturday Night by Susan Werner.

Fair use rationale for

 * It is believed that the use of this image on the English-language Wikipedia to illustrate an article on the audio recording in question falls under the "Non-profit educational" clause of the Fair Use doctrine currently upheld by United States law. (17 U.S.C. § 107)
 * The image is irreplaceable; a free analogue is impossible to produce as the original will be covered by copyright for the foreseeable future
 * Owing to the limited web-resolution of the image, only a small portion of a copyrighted work is used
 * For the same reasons, the portion of the copyrighted work used is of inherently lower quality than the original, reducing the risk of competitiveness and therefore the effects of this copy on the market for or value of versions held by the owner of the copyright


text: Category:Mira variables

title: Category:Mira variables