text:
Talk:Barney Miller

East 6th St or West 6th St?
If the 12th Precinct was supposed to be in Greenwich Village that would be West 6th Street. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.90.149.244 (talk) 01:22, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

What floor is the squad room on in barney miller?
Anyone know? ? 68.198.166.216 (talk) 15:50, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

 * That would be the 2nd floor. 172.10.164.56 (talk) 03:17, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

 * It appears to be the 2nd, because of the staircase just outside the squad room door. However, in some of the episodes, the "visitors" to the squad room (victims, complainants, etc.), directly after leaving, totally ignore the stair case, and head immediately left, to me anyway, implying that the exit is "in front of" the staircase. 32.212.102.239 (talk) 05:49, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Barney Miller "genre" Discussion
Greetings --

Following an unsuccessful edit request, I would like to open the floor to discussion regarding a proposed edit, which I believe is value added in further discerning the unique attributes of this television series relative to archetypal American situation comedies of its time.

Following viewing of the first four seasons, it appears evident the series exhibits singular attributes regarding the implementation of additional fictional genres -- specifically, satire, black comedy, and drama -- that merit recognition to Wikipedia users desiring a more accurate perception of the series. While it's true I have no "formal" source for the proposed addition, I would respectively argue that my content proposal is no different in principle than that of any given entertainment critic...particularly so given such content is ultimately opinion-based in either case. Regardless, I would like to think my offered content was a routine, neutral conclusion resulting from chronological viewing and studying of the subject matter from the first four seasons. Your thoughts are welcomed. Thank you.

The proposed edit would be an insertion of a second sentence (in boldface) in the opening paragraph:

''Barney Miller is an American sitcom television series set in a New York City Police Department police station on East 6th St in Greenwich Village. Although categorically a situation comedy, the series incorporated notable elements of satire, black comedy and drama. The series was broadcast on ABC Network...''

172.10.164.56 (talk) 03:35, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

 * a) These would need a reference and b) bolding would be improper. MarnetteD|Talk 22:12, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Greetings, MarnetteDI --
 * Bolding was simply to show the added content. Please explain why a reference is required?
 * Thank you.
 * -JO 172.10.164.56 (talk) 16:31, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Greetings, MarnetteDI --
 * I am sixty years old. I have been reading literature from a realized cognition standpoint for forty-two years.  I am thoroughly confident that I understand what characterizes satire, black comedy, and drama within the context of a teleplay executed and captured in a television program.  Additionally, I regularly watched this program when it originally aired and have chronically watched all episodes on two occasions and am now conducting a third such viewing.
 * At this time I will restore the content, which is accurate. 172.10.164.56 (talk) 05:34, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

There are numerous instances of this series being referred to by the lazy portmanteau 'dramatic-comedy' given its unusual-for its time writing and staging. i think the section on production history and reception could include sourced reference from media academia on all that film school stuff, given encyclopedic tone and attribution SkidMountTubularFrame (talk) 22:38, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

 * Some things to be aware of. 1) It is best not to assume things about other editors - I am older than you are and, from your description, I have watched the show many more times than you have. 2) Your understanding of what characterizes things is fine for you but it is WP:OR and WP;POV for editing articles. 3) Edit summaries are not references. While it is good that you are trying to find source4s for your information you need to read and understand WP:PRIMARY, WP:SECONDARY and WP:SELFPUBLISHED to make sure that your references meet the guidelines. 4) Your desire to stuff all the items into the lede is WP:UNDUE at the very least. There were numerous sitcoms of the 70s that went for more than broad humor in their storytelling. A subsection in the body of the article would allow for more detail as well as examples of the items you mention. MarnetteD|Talk 04:12, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I will offer the following parting "in response" entry:
 * 1) I surmise you are passing judgement on me.  I assume nothing about Wikipedia editors.  I volunteered my age to show I’m seasoned and well versed (i.e., I’m not an over-zealous sixteen-year-old).  Additionally, given you’ve watched the show "many more times" than I, and are able to exercise top-down destiny of the Wikipedia content as it were — then you should make the requested edit…given you undoubtedly know the proposed content is accurate (as validated by the provided sources).  Doing so would promote an increased understanding of a central aspect of the program.
 * 2 and 3) Given your overarching control of the matter at hand I conclude I’m in no position to satisfy your parameters, which, I might add, are inconsistent.  Notably, you initially stated my content was "unsourced".  My latest submission included sources; however, now you state "edit summaries are not references", which is incorrect given I provided references.  (It’s particularly provocative how a source from The New York Times ain’t good enough.  It’s also noteworthy that the time stamps seemingly suggest an ambush-like precision as the rejection occurred a mere 60 seconds after I published it.)
 * 4)  The subsection idea is good; however, I have no bandwidth to formulate such a properly developed and detailed treatise.  Based on my sour experience at hand, the last thing I’m going to do is compose an essay just to have it autocratically extinguished within sixty seconds — replete with an eight-or-so-word rationale.
 * In any event, I have more palatably favourable things to do with my time than to attempt to place a round peg in a square Wikiwhatnot.  The audit trail here documents that my earnest attempts to provide some consequential information about a unique television program to help readers from other cultures and age groups better understand the show were sincere and value added…yet, were routinely thwarted...and so I bid "ta-ta".
 * As Dietrich would say, "OK, then the hell with it"; to which Yemana would add, "Very well put". 172.10.164.56 (talk) 08:11, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

 * You most certainly passed judgement here when you claimed that we had not watched the show. There are a plethora of personal attacks in your post as well. Giving you links to the proper guidelines is not inconsistent. See WP:OPTIONAL. If you can't be bothered to learn how things work at Wikipedia then there is not much that can be done for you. Feel free to use a blog or your facebook page to make your feelings about the show known. MarnetteD|Talk 14:17, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

James Cromwell
He was in three episodes 72.195.208.84 (talk) 06:30, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
 * And he's listed in the Guest stars subsection. Clarityfiend (talk) 14:09, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Switch cast regulars away from wikitable?
So the Cast section has information about the Regulars in a wikitable, which pushes the info about Regulars BELOW the Infobox, with a bunch of whitespace between Barney_Miller_cast_1974.jpg and the wikitable (I use a laptop). Can we switch the info about Regulars FROM being a wikitable TO something similar to 3 June 2021 (format-wise), but with the descriptions the way they are now. The seasons column info could be presented like it is at Night_Court. Thanks. EarthFurst (talk) 06:39, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Gloria Calomee
What about adding 'Gloria Calomee' to the cast listing? She was Det. Bailey in Season 2, 5th episode, 'Heat Wave.' Her only appearance but memorable! Hesweeney (talk) 20:42, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Odd order of precedence
It seems odd that in the lineup after the cast listings, that in an article named for the eponymous title character and show, that said character's family would be placed AFTER another character's; specifically that "Fish's family" would occur in the article before "Barney's family". If it were even a claim of "alphabetically", that would be acceptable, except, last I checked, B occurs in the English alphabet before F. 32.212.102.239 (talk) 05:56, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Documentary Series
"The History of TV" about the story of "Barney Miller". 71.247.208.187 (talk) 16:49, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Barney Miller


text:
Talk:Fragging

Fragging in Vietnam
Did fragging incidents actually occur in Vietnam? I've heard that they were more myth than reality.

Read The Collapse of the Armed Forces, an article from the Armed Forces Journal. Figures from here show about a 1000.

By this way, I think we need a disambiguation page here. Fragging someone in a computer game is not as serious as fragging someone in the delta. We need two different articles. --Tphcm 03:47, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Much less they say the unfriendly commander was given three warnings, but the article only spells out two.

Who says there have been two instances of fragging in Iraq so far? How come no one has ever heard about it?

P.S. Yes, I know, if it is verified the conservative-echo-chambe-media is why no one has heard about it, but I haven't heard it anywhere including the internet. Maprovonsha172 9 July 2005 03:53 (UTC)

 * Looky here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14150285/

Most of the links no longer work. During the Vietnam War there were numerous anecdotes of imaginative fraggings involving elaborate booby traps in unexpected locations and/or high ranking officers. There were anecdotes of (unidentified) Majors and Colonels being fragged, and under circumstances that would leave little doubt that they were killed by some of their own troops, but subsequent research did not produce even one such incident. It is probable that most of the stories were fictitious, invented to amuse or embolden disgruntle soldiers, or maybe intimidate unpopular officers. Sussmanbern (talk) 20:54, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

UCMJ
What would fragging be considered legally? Mutiny? In the event that someone was convicted, what would the penalty be? Execution? JesseG 02:51, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

Historically
Perhaps a history of incidents that occured before the term "frag" was coined should be added. There is a reference to an artillery shell put under the bed of Braxton Bragg, and I am sure more would be found with a little research.

p.s. Just cuz your holy Internet doesn't have info on frags in Iraq, means nothing, the majority of our stories there have yet to be told. Tortuga 16:25, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

It's not encyclopedic, and third hand evidence, but my English teacher has a habit of going off on tangents to explain things, and according to interviews he held with his grandfather, in WW1 the grandfather's squad in the trenches received a new officer who in the interests of attaining person glory ordered them to go over the top. This was met with incredulous silence, until one of the men pulled out his pistol and blew the man's brains out - and seemingly kept quiet about it until this interview with his grandson. Shows that it's been going on far earlier than vietnam at least. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.139.60.150 (talk) 10:37, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Kinda agree, the term "frag" is definitely much more modern, but killing unpopular leaders was definitely common in history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.108.103.172 (talk) 13:44, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

On the WW One incident mentioned in the text, what I have found is the case of Benjamin De Fehr who was executed in 1916 for mudering his Regimental Sergeant-Major James R. Scott by shooting him in the back.. Though called a fragging, it did not involve the use of a grenade. Kuitan (talk) 13:59, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Iraq 2005
Fragging: in the 'conservative echo chamber' of mainstream news media. That airhead doesn't even know that the mainstream media is liberal-biased aka NY Times, CBS, AP, CNN, MSNBC. ..

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8246860

In the military, these officers are commonly referred to as a**hole*. Nothing new here except an awareness that some arses are never clued in to the fact that there is life and death involved in the arena of their stupidity -- it is only appropriate that they be reminded at the level of their awareness. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him think.

Lebanon 2006
Changed the language - it hasn't been confirmed yet that Israel deliberately shelled U.N posts. Also, whoever added that sentence needs to avail themselves of a copy of the Oxford English Dictionary.
 * I removed the claim, deliberate or not I do not think it qualifies as Fraging.--Anss123 11:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

The use of the word "murder" in the context of eliminating a dangerous officer does not meet Wikipedia's NPOV guidelines. Fragging may, at times, be a highly commendable and brave action.

 * Of course it is murder. Killing someone in a premeditated, non-judicial way is what constituates murder, and this is a blatant occurance of that very act. That it might garner support among the troops takes nothing away from that. --193.11.220.45 23:49, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Would wikipedia describe generic killing in war as murder too? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.184.165.20 (talk) 07:41, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Iraq
I removed from the article references to Hasan Akbar and Alberto Martinez. Akbar's crimes do not fit fragging as described in the rest of the article. Also, the link to Martinez links to a drug lord, so I'm assuming it is not the same person. No references were cited.

Matt the heathen 64.42.209.81 17:00, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Pat Tillman
Just because a blowhard like Chris Matthews suggests Pat Tillman was fragged does not mean his death should be added to the list of incidents. All we have is suspicion at this point. The Tillman reference should only be under popular culture.

--76.173.72.21 05:14, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Harpers Ferry 1862
During the 1862 siege of Harpers Ferry during the Antietam Campaign of the American Civil War, the Harpers Ferry garrison commander, Col. Dixon Miles, was mortally wounded by a shell believed to have been deliberately fired by his own men. I think this is the first known case of fragging in an American army. Jsc1973 04:57, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * That's a claim by one historian, but the official version is a little more forgiving. I'd want something more than supposition, I think, to include such an event. --Dhartung | Talk 05:27, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Full Metal Jacket
Does Gomer Pyle shooting Hartman really count as a fragging, though? I mean, Gomer was more or less mentally deficient at the time, and would probably have shot anyone else that entered the room, up to the prsident or the pope, or indeed himself if no-one had arrived. Not really the deliberate murder of an higher-rank that the article seems to describe otherwise.213.113.252.120 (talk) 23:49, 30 June 2008 (UTC)  I disagree, the Sgt had been abusive to Gomer to the point where Gomer was suicidally depressed. Sussmanbern (talk) 20:56, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Iraq 2009 Camp Liberty
I really don't think we need to have this incident listed at the moment. From the news reports so far, the guy seems to have just snapped and gone on a rampage. While he may have been taunted or disenfranchised by senior officers in the clinic, from the looks of it so far, this is a solo act. The description of fragging seems to suggest premeditation on the part of several soldiers, not a one man rampage. I've added "motive unknown" next to this entry for now, but as more information comes out, I suspect that deleting it will be the best course of action.

The3stars (talk) 12:44, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You're absolutely correct. This was not a fragging; it was someone going postal and killing his fellow soldiers, not his CO. I've removed it.
 * Ron (talk) 04:35, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

straight dope
This article cites sources on fragging studies: http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2877/did-soldiers-really-frag-officers-in-vietnam Brutaldeluxe (talk) 00:12, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Only superior officers?
Does the term "fragging", in current parlance, only refer to the murder of superiors, or could the term refer to the murder of an unpopular grunt? In today's Daily Dish, Andrew Sullivan publishes a letter from a career military man in which it is claimed that an out-of-the closet homosexual soldier is likely, in many cases, to be "fragged" due to his sexuality (this is part of an ongoing debate on DADT). Sullivan, not that familiar with US military culture, mistook "fragging" to be a synonym for hazing, and suggested that banning DADT would permit a soldier so "fragged" to report it up the chain of command without fear of discharge from the military. After numerous readers corrected Sullivan, noting that to be fragged is to be killed, he posted a correction, and linked to this article.

The use of "fragged" in this conversation was not in the context of a superior officer, but of an unpopular platoon-mate.

Comments?

--192.65.41.20 (talk) 22:44, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

An interesting question. I have always assumed the term to refer to eliminating an unpopular officer or NCO, one who would have authority over you; and also that said act would occur during a time of war. A superior could endanger you by ordering you to perform some hazardous duty, or even volunteer the unit for a dangerous mission; killing him would eliminate this and perhaps serve as a warning to the replacement. An unpopular platoon-mate, whether gay or otherwise, would have no such authority. Usually, he would be dealt with by less than lethal means, perhaps a blanket party where he would be held down under a blanket while others beat on him. Could even be a straight out fight. And there are other means of dealing with someone you don't like, various forms of harassment or hazing.

Since soldiers are also human beings, and human beings have killed one another since time immemorial, I am sure there are times when one soldier has been pissed off enough by another's actions, real or imagined, to kill the supposed offender. But I don't think that really constitutes fragging. Wschart (talk) 01:56, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Animal House
It's been a long time since I've seen the film Animal House. What relevance does it have to this article?192.234.13.58 (talk) 17:48, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

At the very end of Animal House we are told of the eventual fate of several characters: Bluto becomes a US Senator; the snobbish frat boy becomes a Nixon White House aide and then is raped in prison; and the ROTC bully is killed in Vietnam - by his own men. Sussmanbern (talk) 21:00, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Tone of the article
This is a remarkably candid article that acknowledges murders occurring in the battlefield among a country's service men and women. What this piece lacks is any sort of official response on the part of the military about these incidents. It's very much a one-sided article.

The article seems to rationalize and normalize this behavior and the lack of hearing what the military's stance is on this makes it seems like it's an unfortunate but accepted practice (when this clearly can't be their official position).

It would also help to know if this practice happens in armed forces of other countries and whether it's more common in countries where this is obligatory military service (a draft) vs. countries with voluntary military service. 69.125.134.86 (talk) 03:04, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

 * I do not agree that the article encourages murder. It should however be rewritten to improve grammar and logical structure.Royalcourtier (talk) 05:17, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Added Content
I'm just going to add some new content about fragging incidents. I think there could be more content on the history of fragging and some contemporary developments. Let me know what you guys think.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:XXFireandIceXx/sandbox

Roman comparison?
Is it really appropriate to compare the lack of repercussions to the decimation of Roman legions? It seems completely out of place, no relevance to the article at all. It implies Roman punishments worked and that they would have worked in a similar way if applied to the US army, which is all conjecture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rottint (talk • contribs) 17:16, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Citation needed for Roman crucifixion
The current version contains the following sentence under the "Motivation" heading:

"Unlike the Roman tradition of crucifying entire legions for disobedience or cowardice, swift administrative responses were ineffective at eradicating the source of the discontent."

Although I'm not exactly opposed to the use, no citation accompanied this assertion. I think that in order to be used, a source needs to be found that 1) indicates Roman crucifixion was effective, and 2) that the "swift administrative responses" used by modern armies were ineffective in comparison. Also, I think that using such an evocative and emotionally-charged image as crucifixion might be problematic. Could another, more contemporary example be more appropriate and serve the same function? Or is this section fine as-is? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.171.105.217 (talk) 18:57, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Decimation was the killing of 1 in 10. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 01:19, 14 February 2015 (UTC).

 * I chopped this because it has no source. And decimation historically could be anywhere between 1 in 5 and 1 in 100, despite the name. Ashmoo (talk) 11:35, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Examples
Not terribly happy with the examples. Some, many or all don't seem to fit the definition. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 01:19, 14 February 2015 (UTC).

Length, clarity and sources
This article is a bit of a mess to be honest. One it has a lot of repetition, two it is never clear as to what fragging actually entails. That is, is it only superior offices, as other commenters have asked? The opening article definition doesn't state that it is murdering members of one's own fighting units, which is a part of the definition, isn't it? And does it only include secretive murder, or does any intra-unit killing count, such as overt shooting sprees? And thirdly, a lot of it has no sources at all and some of it seems to repeat common myths about the military. I'm going to go through and clean up the worst. Please comment here if you disagree with my edits. Ashmoo (talk) 11:21, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Fragging. 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 https://web.archive.org/web/20131226113837/http://ttupress.org/docs/9780896727151PressRelease.pdf to http://ttupress.org/docs/9780896727151PressRelease.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:38, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Fort hood shootings & definition of frag
I was surprised to find that the Fort Hood shootings were never added to the list of incidents (or even discussed) despite the 2009 Fort Hood shooting being listed in the "see also section". According to the definition given in the lead, fragging is not necessarily specifically done with a fragmentation grenade - "The term fragging is now often used to encompass any means used to deliberately and directly cause the death of military colleagues." so only reason I can think of is for not to including it is that it may not fall into the strictest definition of the word. I don't have access to the source in the lead, but most dictionaries that I do have access to (listed below) define it as being with a grenade or similar explosive device. However, Webster’s New World College Dictionary says "esp. with a hand grenade" implying not necessarily so (wiktionary.org & educalingo.com don't mention grenade at all, but not sure if they count for anything). Encyclopedia.com cites "The Oxford Companion to American Military History" which says "...A broader definition encompasses murder by a variety of other means, including mines, shooting, and hit and run with a vehicle..." (which I looked up and will add to the article). If only examples that fall into the strict definition are being included, several of the examples should also be removed, if not, I don't see any reason that the Fort Hood shootings shouldn't be added.

List of definitions:

"to kill or wound (a fellow soldier or superior officer) deliberately with an explosive device." - Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged 2014

"to intentionally kill or wound (one's superior officer, etc.), esp. with a hand grenade." - Webster’s New World College Dictionary, 2014

"To wound or kill (a fellow soldier) by throwing a grenade or similar explosive at the victim" - American Heritage® Dictionary 2016

"to deliberately injure or kill (one's military leader) by means of a fragmentation grenade" - Merriam Webster

"Deliberately kill (an unpopular senior officer) with a hand grenade." - lexico.com Powered by Oxford

"kill with a grenade" - [https://public.oed.com/blog/words-from-the-1960s Ayto, John. "Words from the 1960s". public.oed.com].

Fragging is a term first encountered during the latter years of the Vietnam War. It refers to the killing of officers and noncommissioned officers using fragmentation hand grenades, often thrown into a sleeping area at night. A broader definition encompasses murder by a variety of other means, including mines, shooting, and hit and run with a vehicle. - The Oxford Companion to American Military History, Oxford University Press 1999 & encyclopedia.com Yaakovaryeh (talk) 22:07, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

"FARG-HE" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect FARG-HE. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 21 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 10:08, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

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

title: Talk:Fragging


text:
Talk:Paralipsis

So far as I can discover, praeteritio is only the Latin root of Engligh term preterition' (see, for example, the on-line 2005 Concise Oxford Dictionary and the Collins English Dictionary''). I've found no mention of it as an English term in its own right. I've removed it from the article, but perhaps someone could provide a reference for it.

I've also cleaned up some of the grammar, sharpened (I hope) the definition, and replaced the example with one that's more central.

I must confess to never having come across cataphasis outside Theology, nor could I find it it in any reference work. Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 17:08, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * My dad was taught "praeteritio" in his debate class. Other people know it, too: see . Ashibaka tock 15:39, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Apophasis/Paralipsis/Proslepsis
See discussion on Talk:Apophasis - are these all identical or are there subtle differences?

title: Talk:Paralipsis


text:
Talk:Competition law

Introduction
Which sources have been used for it? -- Vision Thing -- 14:34, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

 * Somewhere, lost in the ideological battles above, someone deleted the references I'd written in! If you look back in the histories you'll find them. But it appeared that one person in particular didn't like it! Please do put'm back in.  Wik idea  13:31, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Post war consensus and European Union law references
Can anybody show me references for these sections? Linking to main article just is not enough, one needs to supply refs localy.--Kozuch (talk) 22:58, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Section names
I suggest simplifying the main section names - removing "Competition law" from them.--Kozuch (talk) 22:59, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

 * That seems to match the MOS, "Avoid restating or directly referring to the topic or to wording on a higher level in the hierarchy". Cretog8 (talk) 23:06, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Citing material
User:Kozuch keeps adding tags on two sections saying there aren't references. I referred him to WP:CITE, and pointed out there are loads of references (i.e. the links to the specific statutes and articles of the EC Treaty), that the whole thing is in summary style anyway, but I'm not sure he's going to listen. Would anyone like to comment on what they feel is lacking? And then would they like to do it themselves? As it stands I think that just moaning is singularly unproductive.  Wik idea  19:28, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality check
From my reading of few sections of the article there seems to be some POV problems. For one article seems to be written from perspective that more regulation is better. For example, in section Post war development it is stated that "Commonwealth countries were slow in enacting statutory competition law provisions." Why "slow", why not "reluctant" or something else? Also, there seems to be a lack of criticism for concept of "competition law" in general and it seems to lack any criticism of its application in practice. I'm pretty sure there were many examples where competition laws were used to stifle completion instead of supporting it, and examples of market dominant firms that simply lost its place in the market without any government intervention. In short, my impression is that this article was written from viewpoint of eager anti-trust lawmakers while viewpoint of business is neglected. -- Vision Thing -- 19:10, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

 * You're welcome to change the word to "reluctant". I think that the theory section offers people's criticisms already: it's bad Wikipedia policy to have "criticism" sections if that's what you mean. Which viewpoints of business did you have in mind?  Wik idea  23:47, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

 * I did a brief search and in my opinion we should include more material like this:

 * ,, , ,

 * I don't propose criticism section, because I'm not a fan of them either, but something more benign like The Effects of Competition law. Also, antitrust paradox should definitely get a mention in the lead. -- Vision Thing -- 21:21, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

 * Why haven't you done anything yet? I'm taking down the tag. It's only you who's worried, and now that you've done your neutrality check, and told us what you're going to do, all you need to do it do it. It would, though, I suggest that if you knew a bit more about the subject than what you find on google. :)  Wik idea  19:00, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

 * Why exactly is it a bad policy to have "criticism" sections? As a reader I've always found them quite useful, as they make it easy to find whatever controversy/criticism there is about the subject at hand, so that one wastes less time understanding both sides, and so that a person that isn't aware that the subject has been significantly criticized is more easily made aware that is was and why it was.
 * If I hadn't the habit of reading the talk pages on wikipedia whenever articles don't sound right, I would've went away thinking this article was biased in favor of antitrust laws, because I saw no "criticism" section. I would never guess the Theory section included criticism, but rather that it merely explained in more depth the theory behind these laws, which doesn't require the inclusion of criticism of the theory. -- Skaruts (talk) 18:58, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:CRITS explains why "criticism" sections are to be avoided. I only read the Theory section, but criticism is integrated well there. Abierma3 (talk) 05:09, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think it explains why they ought to be avoided as much as it simply describes the opinions certain editors hold against them, while still accepting that they are sometimes justified. Neither does it tackle my arguments. Moreover, I would like to know how they would objectively define "bad writing".
 * I argue, again, that they're quite useful for research, or to refer someone specifically to alternative points of view. A good example that I've encountered before would be the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) article (or even the DSM-5 article), which allowed me personally to not have to filter out all the information irrelevant to my research and to find sources more effectively. As with the DSM, competition/anti-trust laws have received quite significant criticism from many notable critics.
 * And again, I also argue that a section called "theory" is not an obvious place to expect to find criticism (refer to 2nd paragraph of my previous comment). -- Skaruts (talk) 18:14, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Image
There has been no consensus to delete the image of the cartoon from the top of the page. It ought to remain there until otherwise agreed. Bearian (talk) 18:46, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

 * I've changed my mind; placing it at the section on US law is probably best. Bearian (talk) 18:54, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

 * You might remember that there was originally an entirely different picture there (or the DOJ building I think). I put that one in, because I thought it was by far the most competition law-specific image I could find. It's just good article practice to have a picture in the introduction. I don't really mind at all that that one isn't there, but I think one (or both) of should put one in that you do like. Surely that's only fair, and more constructive.  Wik  idea  20:19, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

 * Agreed, we should find something to stick in the introduction. I'd like this to make Featured Article status some day. Bearian (talk) 20:21, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

"Some legal scholars have found that ..."
I've added that clause before the citation to Bork's text. I think that is a decent compromise and accurately reflects the current status, without granting any side of the debate undue weight. Bearian (talk) 18:48, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * P.S. I'm a "legal scholar" myself, so I hope that I know what I'm talking about. Bearian (talk) 18:56, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you're a legal scholar! And that you're being helpful. In fact I don't mind Bork being in there, and this skiff is part of the fact that the article is far from finished: the intro should of course summarise the theory section. Might I suggest attempting that?  Wik idea  20:21, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I forgot what I'd actually written in the intro. It works better now (you might notice that the intro was cleverly designed to be the reverse of the page's structure!)  Wik idea  20:30, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Ownership issues still?
No article on Wikipedia is ever finished, so bristling at changes to a "far from finished" article is especially strange.

This comment is not helpful. I don't think anyone is accusing you of changing the meaning on purpose, but the sentence you proposed does have a different meaning. One would believe that Bork is accusing antitrust laws of necessarily helping inefficient competitors. No, he's not; in the United States, helping small competitors was one of the only coherent themes of pre-1970s antitrust law. Instead he's saying that consumer welfare is harmed when inefficient competitors are protected, ect. Anyhow, it's better to discuss these issues than make threats. Cool Hand Luke 02:20, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

 * I'd like to give you a lesson on the use of the future subjunctive tense. But I appreciate that in America - and for some Americans - grammatical usage is not as sophisticated. I also appreciate that you didn't just revert like a complete tool. As for your assertion about ownership issues, I call an article finished when I've put all footnotes into a sensible format, made it read properly straight through. I think that you should probably pay attention to the fact that the page did not exist before I came along.  Wik idea  09:29, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

 * Maybe you should remember that editing Wikipedia is a privilege, not a right. -- Vision Thing -- 19:17, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

 * I say that 14 months is long enough for an article to leave your womb. It can, should, and must be edited by others. Let it happen, and stop making personal attacks. (Good to know I'm not a complete tool. Thanks.) Cool Hand Luke 05:16, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

 * Well, duh, but that doesn't mean that I should stand by while it's messed up by complete tools. Oh, and if you were referring to my grammar comments, I protest, that entirely was not a personal attack. It was an attack against a sizeable proportion of your country. :)  Wik idea  09:39, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Tags
The problems I listed in Talk:Competition law/Old still, for the most part, have not been addressed, yet the tags were removed. THF (talk) 18:07, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Reason for tags
The vast majority of these were suggestions made in June 2007; only a few of them have been resolved. I've added new ones. This is, believe it or not, not a complete list.
 * 1) The lead, and much of the article, fails to acknowledge the fundamental split between American antitrust law (protect competition, maximize consumer welfare) and European competition law (protect competitors).
 * 2) No acknowledgement in the lead that Chicago School view of competition law is dominant theory behind US federal antitrust law, or the huge shift in American competition law between 1977 and 2007.
 * 3) No mention of the controversy over global antitrust enforcement.  See Richard Epstein on the subject.
 * 4) No mention of Chicago School critique of leverage theory of anticompetitive behavior; instead tying is taken as example of anticompetitive behavior: "One case in point could be a software company who through its monopoly on computer platforms makes consumers use its media player" violates NPOV -- it is not unanimous opinion that this is anticompetitive.  E.g., Schor v. Abbott Laboratories, No. 05-3344 (7th Cir. 2006) (Easterbrook, J.).
 * 5) "A refusal to supply a facility which is essential for all businesses attempting to compete to use can constitute an abuse." is a very controversial proposition, but there is no acknowledgement of that.
 * 6) Competition law history section also inaccurate and pro-intervention POV
 * 7) "The Sherman Act did not have the immediate effects its authors intended." -- cite needed.  Seems quite POV.
 * 8) Mischaracterization of Chicago School views throughout article
 * 9) That ellipses in the description of the New Law changes the meaning completely and renders the quote incoherent.
 * 10) The line about "libertarians" and price-fixing is not accurate and contradicted by the footnote, which merely talks about a school of New Critics, and argues that fellow libertarians should oppose price-fixing.  Not clear to me that New Critics merit more than a sentence or two, if that much, under WP:WEIGHT, but they definitely shouldn't be held to be representative of libertarians.
 * 11) "When firms hold large market shares, up to one hundred percent, consumers are probably at risk of paying higher prices and getting lower quality products than if the market were competitive." - unclear meaning, and very poor explication of problem of market power, as well as conveying disputed POV that market share = market power
 * 12) "However often firms take advantage of their increase in market power, their increased market share and decreased number of competitors, which can have a knock on effect on the deal that consumers get." obvious POV problem, inaccurate, and unencyclopedic
 * 13) "The late Harvard Law School Professor Philip Areeda, who favours more aggressive antitrust policy, in at least one Supreme Court case challenged Robert Bork's preference for non-intervention." That Areeda and Bork participated in a particular Supreme Court case seems irrelevant trivia; economists file briefs in just about every US Supreme Court antitrust case in the last thirty years.
 * 14) Predatory pricing section unbalanced and violates NPOV.
 * 15) The entire "Dominance and monopoly" section is written from an EU perspective, without any acknowledgement of the more nuanced USA antitrust law perspective.
 * 16) No acknowledgement of criticism of price discrimination law and the de facto abandonment of that cause of action in the US.
 * 17) "An example of this could be offering rebates to industrial customers who export sugar that your company sells, but not to Irish customers who are selling in the same market as you are in." does not parse, and is probably inaccurate once written to parse.
 * 18) No discussion of the importance of market definition, which, in the US at least, is fundamental to determining market power.
 * 19) No acknowledgement of the central tenet of 21st-century American antitrust policy, as expressed by regulators and Spectrum Sports: "The law directs itself not against conduct which is competitive, even severely so, but against conduct which unfairly tends to destroy competition itself."
 * 20) Eurocentric; EC-regulators' view of the world discussed, while contrary American views are not. (E.g., conglomerate mergers, where the EC decision to block the GE-Honeywell merger was roundly criticized by American regulators and academics.  See discussion in conglomerate merger article.)
 * 21) The "Public sector regulation" section is entirely Eurocentric, has no discussion of American views, and perhaps doesn't belong in this article at all: in the US, public utility regulation is considered a separate field from antitrust.
 * 22) "Collusion and cartels" section written extraordinarily vaguely, has substandard discussion of the controversy over vertical agreements, and no mention of the extraordinary change in US law over the last thirty years with respect to vertical agreements. As with the rest of the article, the breezy tone both confuses the discussion and is inappropriate for Wikipedia.
 * 23) Tacit collusion is not considered illegal price fixing in the US, e.g., Bell Atlantic v. Twombly, (though Posner argues that it should be).
 * 24) The "contemporary issues" section discusses European views only. There are contemporary issues in American antitrust law.  It's also unclear why this is in the theory section, as no theory is discussed in the subsection.
 * 25) The "Neo-classical synthesis" section seems nearly wholly extraneous. It appears to violate the WP:NOR guidelines.
 * 26) No mention of the Illinois Brick issue.
 * 27) No mention of the overlapping state and federal antitrust regulation in the US federalist system.
 * 28) There is a consensus that the article is too long. So I am unsure why there is adding extraneous trivia about Smith and Mill that has no relevance to competition law today.  Break all this out into the history of competition law article.
 * 29) The history of competition law section is far far too long, since very little of today's competition law is built on what was done before the late 19th century.
 * 30) "In the 1930s, Americans' fear of big business and their impending loss of accountability initiated the most aggressive antitrust campaign in history" is factually false. The New Deal was very pro-cartel.
 * 31) British Air price-fixing is trivia that doesn't belong in the article.
 * 32) United States v. AT&T was not "public sector regulation" but a traditional antitrust case.
 * 33) "A merger or acquisition involves, from a competition law perspective, the concentration of economic power in the hands of fewer than before" is factually false or, at least, POV. Vertical mergers of monopolies can transfer economic surplus to consumers.
 * 34) "Competition law requires that firms proposing to merge ... simply go ahead but face the prospect of demerger should the concentration later be found to lessen competition." is factually false in the US.
 * 35) The extensive quotes of US statutes are not helpful, given that antitrust law in the US is largely a question of federal common law. The rule of reason is mentioned, but not explained, though it is critical to an understanding of US antitrust law.
 * 36) No discussion of conflict between intellectual property law and antitrust.
 * 37) No mention of Noerr-Pennington doctrine.
 * 38) Unencyclopedic tone of original research throughout.
 * 39) Lead is disjointed, does not flow at all.
 * 40) Entire article poorly and unclearly written, with passive voice, turgid text, pronoun reference problems, and weasel words abounding, as are grammar and punctuation problems and non sequiturs and irrelevant trivia.

For these 40 or so reasons, I have added the {rewrite}, {expert}, {disputed}, {npov}, {globalize}, {weasel} and {originalresearch} tags. THF (talk) 11:34, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

RFC

 * Comment on RFC I think THF makes a very good case above. The general presumption is that if a dedicated and earnest editor believes there is a NPOV problem, there probably is. Engage him directly, although it would probably be a good deal better for the tempers of all concerned if you worked on one issue at a time, instead of 40 (!) at once. Ray (talk) 16:01, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with that, but I think THF wrote this long list because naming a few examples were met with claims that those were isolated problems, then the flags removed. Cool Hand Luke 17:01, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment on RFC First, quickly, I found this page only by following the request for an WP:NPOV review on the NPOV noticeboard. I have no specific opinion on the topic, and in order to properly address the question posed on the NPOV Noticeboard, which is only to resolve the disagreement between THF and Wikidea over how to handle the NPOV disagreement between them (and not to resolve the content disputes), I have not read through the article in an attempt to avoid forming my own opinion on who is right and who is wrong about the issues being discussed and thusly allowing my own bias to come into my opinion.  Instead, I have only read through the talk page (both this current and the archived page), and have a couple of main comments:
 * 1)  THF - You provide a number of criticisms of the article as written, but you do not offer specific solutions for addressing these issues.  As this topic is clearly important to you, as evidenced by the obvious amount of time you have spent tracking this article and commenting on the talk page, I would propose that your comments should address not only what you believe is wrong with a specific section of the article, but also to provide a specific proposal on how to fix it, which you have, for the most part, not done.  Specifically, I suggest that, where you take issue with a specific sentence or paragraph, provide a proposed alternative wording to that sentence or paragraph.  Where you have issues with a section not being included at all, I suggest that you offer some proposed wording for what should be included and allow other users to provide comments so that a consensus can be reached on whether to include the topic and how to phrase the section.
 * 2)  Wikidea - As I have said in my introduction, I have not read the article myself and thusly have no opinion on whether or not the article violates WP:NPOV requirements.  However, I will say that, based on the comments provided by THF and by others within the talk pages, it is apparent that, true or not, there is a general opinion that the article needs some work in order to be NPOV.  When this type of opinion exists, it is absolutely important to discuss these in a civil manner.  Your personal attacks against THF are completely out of place here, as other users have raised concerns similar to his.
 * 3)  THF's employer has no bearing on this topic unless specific evidence can be provided either that a) THF himself has published comments suggesting his total opposition to this topic or b) the American Enterprise Institute's official position (not speculation based on their reputation as a conservative institution) on the topic.  If this evidence can be provided, one could reasonable argue WP:COI.  However, without this evidence, there is no valid reason to conclude a COI exists.  Deleteyourself16 (talk) 15:01, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

 * I'm not sure what you mean by "specific" solutions; it's hard to see how I could be more specific without entirely rewriting the article myself. THF (talk) 15:24, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

 * What I mean is to offer proposed verbiage for the section which you are questioning. What I have seen for the most part is that you provide commentary that something is wrong, biased, etc., but you do not offer proposed text.  The most efficient way to resolve this type of dispute is, when you see a sentence/paragraph/section that you do believe is wrong/biased, is to provide a re-write of the section, wherein you provide the verbiage you would find acceptable, thereby offering a starting point for negotiations to reach an acceptable solution, which most likely falls somewhere in between what you would like to see and what Wikidea would like to see.  Providing this suggested verbiage in the talk page would also give other readers the ability to provide comment in order to assist in the dispute resolution process. Deleteyourself16 (talk) 08:37, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

 * In other words, entirely rewriting the article. The tags and identification of the multiple problems are an intermediate step before I undertake that gigantic project.  My comments should not be opaque to someone experienced in the field, but if you have specific concerns about my specific concerns, I'm happy to expand. THF (talk) 15:59, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

 * I believe that the issue may be in light of what you and Wikidea perceive to be important to the article. For instance, one of your comments above says "No mention of the Illinois Brick issue."  However, without providing a context of how you would like this to be brought up and in what section, it could be difficult to interpret your comment.  For instance, do you want this included in the History section, the US Antitrust section, or elsewhere?  I hope that provides a clear enough example of what I mean with my comments.  As I have no specific knowledge of or interest in the topic and am here only to assist in resolving a dispute request, as posted on the NPOV Noticeboard, I will say in all honesty that I have no intention of reviewing each of your points one-by-one and providing comments for each about how you should elaborate.  If you have a need for more detailed comments on a point-by-point basis, I regret that I will be unable to provide them. Deleteyourself16 (talk) 16:31, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

 * As an EU-based practitioner, I would agree with all of THF's points raised above, and would be inclined to add another tag to the article, namely that it does not represent a worldwide view of the subject. Credit to THF for proposing to rewrite the piece; it has so much wrong with it I wouldn't know where to begin. By the by, I also note that much of the article is a repetition of what is to be found at History of competition law which is too heavily weighted in favour of the anglo-saxon development of the subject. Lamberhurst (talk) 08:31, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

 * This article has had a lot of opposition to it from the very beginning, something I honestly fail to understand. As far as I understood, at the beginning this article was meant to be an explanation mostly of European competition law, as the US was covered under Anti-trust. That is why you will find that the Dominance and Monopoly sections are EU-centric - they were written from a EU pov (and it was most likely taken from Craig de Burca's EU text and the other opus w/ a similar title). Now it has taken on the shape of an article that is supposed to cover the entire world, something it honestly can't do. Nor can we expect this article to serve as a comparative analysis of the US & EU system. It can merely touch on some key factors. Now, I reserve my opinion on all of the actual economic theory, as I am no expert there. By all means, correct what is wrong here.

 * I guess what I'm saying is that we all need to be clear on the objectives of this article. What is the overall aim of this article, what are we expecting readers to learn upon reading it? How much do you expect readers to understand about economic theory? What kind of an example is acceptable? e.g., I'm pretty sure the example about the software comes from a textbook....

 * Also, isn't a discussion of the intellectual property/competition law issue outside of the scope of this article? It has been touched on as a point of controversy in the WTO section, but we could write absolute reams on this issue. Imagine the size of the section if we introduced the public health TRIPS debate on comp law *alone* into this, nevermind the general question of it even existing under the WTO regimes. Just a few of my thoughts. --Sephui (talk) 21:58, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Agree with quite a few points on THF's list, but point 1 is incorrect. The SIEC test and the practice of the European Commission only have the protection of the consumer in mind, and not the protection of competitors. SmilingBoy (talk) 16:35, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Conflict of interest
THF works for the American Enterprise Institute, a right wing lobby group, and the reason he brings this here now is that he is engaging in an attempt to delete the tort reform article. While some of that list of 40 may be relevant, editors are advised that this is probably more about pursuing a grudge than anything else. He is not willing to engage in discussion, or any constructive, incremental change, but would simply prefer to see whole articles deleted. Also, don't be fooled into tthinking he is an expert on this, despite his bombastic, self righteous tone.  Wik idea  14:10, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

 * Also, much of what he has written may well be relevant for the US antitrust page. As I say, he is not interested in improving the encyclopedia, only trashing anything that doesn't conform with the views of his employers.  Wik idea  14:37, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

 * My employers don't have any views on the subject. But if you can tell me the official AEI position on Illinois Brick and Noerr-Pennington, which I think should be discussed in the article, I'd love to hear it. THF (talk) 14:53, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

 * Caution WP:NPA and WP:AGF is directly implicated here. Engage on the merits, not on the person. Since THF is writing about general matters of law and politics and not anything in which he has a personal stake, WP:COI doesn't come into it. Ray (talk) 16:05, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

The Robert Bork citation makes no sense.
The following paragraph  makes  no sense whatso:

Robert Bork has argued that competition laws can produce adverse effects when they reduce competition by protecting inefficient competitors and when costs of legal intervention are greater than benefits for the consumers.[5]

Allegedly Bork claims that “competition laws … [sometimes] … reduce competition by protecting inefficient competitors”. That means that competition laws sometimes have exactly the opposite effect of what they’re intended to do. I find that a paradoxical statement that requires explanation. Or else the writer made a stupid mistake and didn't bother to proofread what he wrote, which is a more likely explanation.

I don't think even such a dimwit as Robert Bork would state something so outlandish without at least giving an example of what he meant. I had the misfortune to read some of his ramblings on economics, and I got the clear impression that he does not have the foggiest notion of what he's writing about. He uses economic theory as a blunt instrument. His thinking on economic matters is crude, ponderous and mechanical.

Bork is the Sayyid Qutb of conservatism (and just about as pig-headed as that worthy).

I won't even go into the dirt dished on him by the guy who started Media Matters, a right-wing libelist, Matt Something, the darling of the right, who switched sides when he was finally nauseated by the festering corruption of conservative politics. What he has to say about Bork’s political and judicial shenanigans shows that Bork is the closest thing to Josef Stalin that ever got within hailing distance of a Supreme Court job. In any case he's a heavy-duty dirtbag, and I reject his prattle on purely ethical grounds.

By the way, there are right-wing economists whom I respect, like Hayek and Demsetz§Mumbo-jumbophobe (talk) 08:05, 1 May 2010 (UTC)Mumbo-Jumbophobe.

 * When the competition laws protect competitors rather than competition, it hurts consumers. This is not a controversial proposition, and it is one that has been adopted by the U.S. Supreme Court.  Separately, please review WP:NOT.  Your personal opinion about Bork is quite irrelevant. THF (talk) 09:06, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Origin of modern competition law
I'm very much a novice in this field, however this article cites the US Sherman Act of 1890 as the origin of modern competition law.

The Canadian "Act for the Suppression of Combinations Formed in Restraint of Trade" (see http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?collection=journals&handle=hein.journals/canusa12&div=9&id=&page=) was in 1889... this should at least be mentioned in the article.

216.121.218.12 (talk) 03:24, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

"The Sherman Act did not have the immediate effects its authors intended"
In the United Stated antitrust sentence, one of the paragraphs states "The Sherman Act did not have the immediate effects its authors intended", without explaining why, or what the immediate effects were. Don't remember offhand myself... --Agamemnus (talk) 07:15, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I was able to find an article on a website for a division of the US National Archives regarding The Sherman Act. This act was created to break up large trusts that threatened consumer choice, and therefore, comsumer prices, through the bundling of all the different companies owned by the entity or individual under one umbrella 'trust'. The article I found only implies the "immediate effect" was to dismantle The Standard Oil Company. This and other companies were operated by the "robber barons" that had come to be in that era (ie: Rockefeller, Vanderbilt, Carnegie, and Morgan, to name a few). However, one can only assume, from this implication, that this was to be the "immediate effect" mentioned in this section. FYI, the article I used to make that assumption can be found at: http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=true&doc=51, a site maintained by the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) division of the National Archives of the United States. I think we need to get consensus before altering the article, though. There is nothing civil about Civil War.Let's Talk! 07:27, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

EU part
It needs to get the new TFEU articles numbers. Cimmerian praetor (talk) 18:36, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

"Restraint of trade in india" (sic)
I refer to the final sentence of the "Principles" section:
 * Different terms were used to describe this area of the law, including "restrictive practices," "the law of monopolies," "combination acts" and the "restraint of trade in india"

Could someone who is familiar with the work at hand (Smith) tell us if this means India the country or some sort of 'india' commodity (rubber, ink, etc.)? Iain (talk) 21:17, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Badly Written!!
This page is suffering from ham-fisted editing that makes it appear to be written by someone who's first language is not english. Examples: under heading Theory, subheading Neo-classical Synthesis, "...or alternatively rational producers will be reduce their output to..." Will be reduce their output to? That is gibberish. And under heading Practice, subheading Dominance and monopoly, "This was the alleged case in Microsoft v. Commission[70] leading to an eventual fine of million for including its Windows Media Player..." an eventual fine of 'million', whatever that means... and I suspect there are more, I didn't read the whole page. I find it hard to believe this page was ever a 'former good article nominee', but one thing is for sure, unless editors of this page start proof-reading their edits, it will never again be nominated as a good article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.199.5.24 (talk) 07:21, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Competition law. 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://www.webcitation.org/5QDuuptJY?url=http://www.cei.org/pdf/1615.pdf to http://www.cei.org/pdf/1615.pdf

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) 05:14, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Competition law. 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 https://web.archive.org/web/20070927202615/http://www.adamsmith.org/smith/won-index.htm to http://www.adamsmith.org/smith/won-index.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:39, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Competition law


text:
File:Talestoastonish.jpg

Cover to Tales to Astonish #44, June, 1963. Art by Jack Kirby.

Fair-use rationale

 * For use in article Tales to Astonish
 * No free alternative possible
 * Historically justifiable and significant image (Example of the comic's history of introducing of major Marvel characters)
 * Illustrates the subject of this article
 * Is a low-resolution image
 * Does not deprive company of ability to make money in any way, and is not being used in a misleading manner

Fair-use rationale

 * For use in article Wasp (comics)
 * No free alternative possible
 * Historically justifiable and significant image (introduction of a major character)
 * Illustrates the subject of this article
 * Is a low-resolution image
 * Does not deprive company of ability to make money in any way, and is not being used in a misleading manner

title: File:Talestoastonish.jpg


text:
Curaçao (liqueur)

Curaçao is a liqueur flavored with the dried peel of the bitter orange variety laraha, a citrus fruit grown on the Caribbean island of Curaçao.

Curaçao can be sold in numerous forms, though the most common are the orange-hued dry curaçao and blue curaçao, which is dyed bright blue.

History
It is not known who developed the first curaçao liqueur, and when. The Dutch West Indies Company took possession of Curaçao in 1634. The Bols distillery, founded in 1575 in Amsterdam, had shares in both the West and East India Companies to guarantee its access to spices required for their distilled drinks. According to the early nineteenth-century French culinary chronicler Alexandre Grimod de la Reynière, curaçao originated in Flanders, and proximity to the province of Holland gave distillers easy access to the necessary peels (since Curaçao was a Dutch colony at the time).

Curaçao liqueur is traditionally made with the dried peels of the laraha (Citrus × aurantium subsp. currassuviencis), a bitter orange that developed on Curaçao. Spanish explorers had brought the progenitor of the laraha, the bitter Seville orange, to the island in 1527. Although the bitter flesh of the laraha is unpalatable, the peels are pleasantly aromatic.

The Bols company says that Lucas Bols (1652–1719) developed a laraha-based liqueur after the discovery that an aromatic oil could be extracted from the unripe peel of the otherwise useless bitter oranges. Bols then had this oil exported back to Amsterdam to produce a liqueur similar to current day curaçao. Lucas Bols tended to add an "element of alchemical mystery" to his products, explaining the unlikely addition of a blue coloring. In 1912, Bols sold blue curaçao as Crème de Ciel ("cream of the sky"), most likely a reference to the 1907 musical Miss Hook of Holland.

Senior & Co, a company started in Curaçao, is the only company that has always produced its liqueur from the peels of the laraha from Curaçao. The family, Senior and Chumaceiro, started selling their liqueur in 1896 in their pharmacy in small quantities. In 1947 they bought the landhuis ("country manor") Chobolobo in Willemstad, where the distillery has since been housed. The company states that it is the only one that uses native laraha fruit, and label it Genuine Curaçao Liqueur.

The liqueur is mentioned several times under the spelling "curaçoa" in William Thackeray's Vanity Fair of 1847–1848 as a drink taken by dissolute young men. For example, Lady Jane Southdown pays her brother "a furtive visit in his chambers in the Albany; and found him – O the naughty dear abandoned wretch! – smoking a cigar with a bottle of curaçoa before him."

Preparation
To make the liqueur, Senior and Co soak the laraha in alcohol and water for several days, after which the peel is removed and placed in a gunny bag. Spices are added, and the bag is hung in a heated 120-year-old copper still with 96% pure and kosher alcohol (derived from sugar cane) for three days. After one day cooling, water is added and the mixture is distilled for three days. The liqueur has an orange-like flavour with varying degrees of bitterness. It is naturally colourless, but colouring, most commonly blue (often E133 brilliant blue) or orange, is often added to confer an exotic appearance to cocktails and other mixed drinks.

Some other liqueurs are also sold as curaçaos with different flavors added, such as coffee, chocolate, rum and raisin. Pierre Ferrand, a cognac and dry Curaçao brand, produced a less sweet "Ancienne Méthod" curaçao using 1800s techniques.

title: Curaçao (liqueur)


text:
Shuckburgh (crater)

Shuckburgh is a lunar impact crater that is located in the northeastern part of the Moon's near side, named after Sir George Augustus William Shuckburgh-Evelyn. It lies south-southeast of the flooded crater Chevallier and northwest of Hooke, roughly midway between these two formations. To the northeast is the Lacus Temporis plain.

The interior floor of this crater has been resurfaced with lava, leaving a level plain surrounded by the worn and rounded outer rim. This floor is nearly featureless, being marked only by a few tiny craterlets. The edge has an outward protrusion along the eastern side, with a terrace forming a shelf along this side. There is a smaller outward protrusion in the north rim which connects it with the small crater Shuckburgh C.

Satellite craters
By convention these features are identified on lunar maps by placing the letter on the point of the crater rim that is closest to Shuckburgh.

title: Shuckburgh (crater)


text:
Fasken

Fasken Martineau DuMoulin LLP (doing business as Fasken) is an international business law firm with approximately 925 lawyers and offices in Vancouver, Surrey, Calgary, Toronto, Ottawa, Montréal, Québec City, London and Johannesburg. The firm traces its origins to a predecessor firm that was originally founded in 1863. On 29 November 2017, the firm announced that it was changing its brand name from Fasken Martineau to Fasken.

History
Fasken is the result of a merger between three predecessor firms – Fasken Campbell Godfrey, Martineau Walker, and Russell & DuMoulin. Fasken Campbell Godfrey in Toronto was formed from the 1989 merger of two long-standing Toronto firms, Fasken & Calvin (which began as Beatty and Chadwick, founded in 1863 by William Henry Beatty and Edward Marion Chadwick) and Campbell Godfrey & Lewtas (which began as Howland & Arnoldi in the 1880s). Martineau Walker in Montreal dates from 1907, while Russell & DuMoulin in Vancouver dates from 1882.

In late 1999, Toronto-based Fasken Campbell Godfrey and Quebec-based Martineau Walker (of Montreal and Quebec City) joined together, forming Fasken Martineau. In February 2000, Vancouver-based Russell & DuMoulin joined the group to create Fasken Martineau DuMoulin LLP.

Notable members and alumni

 * Joel Lightbound, Canadian member of Parliament
 * Mark Andrews, University boat race winner
 * Jeff Dennis, Toronto entrepreneur
 * Guy Giorno, former political operative
 * Claude R. Thomson

title: Fasken


text:
1808 in rail transport

February events

 * February 8 – The Washington Bridge Company is granted authority in Washington, D.C., to build the Long Bridge over the Potomac River, a bridge that will eventually be rebuilt to carry the first railroad tracks to cross the river.

May events

 * May 27 – The Kilmarnock and Troon Railway becomes the first railway line in Scotland authorised by Act of Parliament.

July events

 * July 8 through September 18 – Richard Trevithick's steam locomotive Catch Me Who Can is demonstrated in London.

January births

 * January 8 – John A. Poor, first president of the Portland Company is born in Andover, Maine (d. 1871).

February births

 * February 10 – John Edgar Thomson, president of the Pennsylvania Railroad 1852-1874 (d. 1874).

March births

 * March 19 – Johann Andreas Schubert, builder of the first German steam locomotive, Saxonia, is born in Wernesgrün (d. 1870).

May births

 * May 12 – Joseph Hamilton Beattie, locomotive engineer for London and South Western Railway 1850–1871 (d. 1871), is born.

July births

 * July 25 – Francis Thompson, English architect working chiefly on railways (d. 1895).

Unknown date births

 * George Muirson Totten, chief construction engineer for the Panama Railway (d. 1884).

title: 1808 in rail transport


text:
Nile Kinnick

Nile Clarke Kinnick Jr. (July 9, 1918 – June 2, 1943) was an American naval aviator, law student, and college football player for the Iowa Hawkeyes. He won the 1939 Heisman Trophy and was a consensus All-American. He died during a training flight while serving as a United States Navy aviator in World War II. Kinnick was inducted into the College Football Hall of Fame in 1951, and the University of Iowa renamed its football stadium Kinnick Stadium in his honor in 1972.

Early life
Nile Clarke Kinnick Jr. was the son of Nile Clarke Kinnick Sr. and Frances Clarke. He had two younger brothers, Ben and George. His maternal grandfather, George W. Clarke, graduated from the University of Iowa in 1878 and served two two-year terms as the Governor of Iowa from 1913 to 1917.

Nile's parents were devoted to the teachings of Christian Science and helped Nile develop values of discipline, hard work, and strong morals. Nile was reportedly constantly thinking about self-improvement and working on turning personal weaknesses into strengths. Nile was also a devout Christian Scientist, and regularly attended the Christian Science branch church in Iowa City, while he was a student at the university.

Kinnick began showing athletic aptitude at a young age as well. As a youth, he played on a Junior Legion baseball team with the future major leaguer Bob Feller.

At Adel High School, Kinnick led the football team to an undefeated season, and then he scored 485 points for the basketball team, leading them to the district finals. After his junior year of high school, the Kinnick family moved when Nile Kinnick Sr. took a job in Omaha, Nebraska. Nile was a first-team all-state selection in both football and basketball as a senior, as he started for one year with his brother Ben at Benson High School in Omaha. He led Benson to a third-place finish in the state basketball and to the city baseball championship.

Undergraduate years
Kinnick had always been an excellent student as well as an athletic leader, and he could have graduated in 1935, but his parents held him back a year to become thoroughly prepared for the university. He considered the University of Minnesota – how seriously is not clear – but he chose the University of Iowa. The struggles of the Iowa Hawkeyes football team might have attracted him. Verle Davis, Kinnick's football coach at Adel, recalled that "Kinnick was determined to go to some school that was down ... He didn't want to go to Minnesota, because they were on top ... He finally went to Iowa as he figured they were at their lowest ebb." The account is persuasive, because it was typical of Kinnick. To start from nothing and test himself against his own weakness as well as outside resistance were challenges Kinnick always pursued if they were available.

He was recruited to Iowa by Coach Ossie Solem in 1936. Kinnick was named the co-captain of the freshman team. He also played baseball and basketball during his freshman year.

After the 1936 season, Solem left Iowa to go to Syracuse University, and the University of Iowa hired Irl Tubbs to replace him. As a sophomore, Kinnick was terrific, but the Hawkeyes just could not win. Iowa battled Washington, the eventual Pacific Coast Conference champions, to the wire in a 14–0 defeat and then scored an early victory over Bradley University. It was Iowa's only win of the year. But opponents raved about Kinnick. After scoring Iowa's only touchdown in a 13–6 loss to Wisconsin, Solem wrote the Des Moines Register sportswriter Sec Taylor from Syracuse, "I was sure that Kinnick was destined to be the greatest back in all Iowa history, and I am more convinced than ever that he will be."

Iowa lost all five Big Ten Conference games in 1937. The "heartbreaking" loss was a 7–6 defeat at the hands of Michigan, despite Kinnick's 74-yard punt return for a touchdown. Sportswriter Bert McGrane wrote, "I can't recall a single break that favored Iowa ... You'd think Iowa would win the toss by accident once in a while." Iowa had not won the coin toss in 13 games. Kinnick, the lone bright spot of the 1937 season, led the nation in punting and was named first team All-Big Ten and a third team All-American.

Kinnick played basketball, too, and he was Iowa's second leading scorer and the 15th leading scorer in the Big Ten his sophomore year in 1937–38. After a brief stint in baseball that summer, Nile dropped the third sport. In 1938, he hurt his ankle in preseason football practice and was not at full strength for his entire junior year. Kinnick played through the pain, but it hampered his effectiveness. His Christian Science beliefs limited the amount of medical assistance that Kinnick allowed himself to receive from the team doctors, believing that his injury could be overcome by his reliance on prayer for healing.

Kinnick was an honorable mention All-Big Ten selection his junior year in 1938. (It was later revealed that he had probably played the 1938 season with a broken ankle. Most contemporaries say that because of Christian Science religion he would not allow himself to be examined by a doctor. In fact, the Christian Science religion does not prohibit medical help, and leaves the choice whether to seek medical attention up to the individual. However, a teammate says that he did not go to a doctor because he had learned a different style of wrapping his ankle and did not want anyone else messing with it. He "went to a doctor when something was wrong with him.") He also declared that he would not participate in basketball in the upcoming year, citing personal concerns over his school work. After a 1–6–1 season, Irl Tubbs was fired at Iowa, and the doctor, Eddie Anderson, was now the head coach.

Kinnick was also a member of the Phi Kappa Psi fraternity at the University of Iowa during his undergraduate years.

1939 season
Before the 1939 season, Kinnick wrote, "For three years, nay for fifteen years, I have been preparing for this last year of football. I anticipate becoming the roughest, toughest all-around back yet to hit this conference." He also wrote, "I'm looking forward to showing Anderson what a real football player looks like – so hold your hats."

Coach Anderson liked Kinnick immediately. He referred to all of his players by their last names, except Kinnick, who was always "Nile". Anderson favored student-athletes, because he felt that scholars made better players over the long run. He believed the 1939 team could be a good one, but only if the starters played significant minutes. Before the first game, the Des Moines Register had a small note stating that "a set of iron men may be developed to play football for Iowa." The 1939 Hawkeyes, nicknamed the "Ironmen", would become one of the greatest teams in school history. Many of Anderson's players played complete games during that season for the Hawkeyes.

In 1939, Iowa finished the year ranked ninth in the AP Poll with a 6–1–1 record. Kinnick threw for 638 yards and 11 touchdowns on only 31 passes and ran for 374 yards. He was involved in 16 of the 19 touchdowns (11 passing, 5 rushing) that Iowa scored and was involved in 107 of the 130 points that Iowa scored that year. He played 402 of a possible 420 minutes that season. All told, Kinnick set 14 school records, six of which still stand over 65 years later.

At the end of the season, Nile Kinnick won virtually every major award in the country. He was a consensus First-Team All-American, and he appeared on every first team ballot to become the only unanimous selection in the AP voting. He won the Big Ten MVP award by the largest margin in history. He also won the Maxwell Award and the Walter Camp Memorial Trophy. Nile Kinnick even won the Associated Press Male Athlete of the Year, beating out such notables as Joe DiMaggio, Byron Nelson, and Joe Louis. He was the first college football player to win that award. On November 28, 1939, Nile Kinnick won the Heisman Trophy, becoming to date the only Iowa Hawkeye to win college football's most prestigious award.

Heisman Trophy
Upon receiving the Heisman at the Downtown Athletic Club in New York City, Kinnick made the following statement during his acceptance speech:

"Finally, please if you'll permit me, I'd like to make a comment which in my mind, is indicative perhaps of the greater significance of football, and sports emphasis in general in this country, and that is; I thank God I was warring on the gridirons of the Midwest and not on the battlefields of Europe. I can speak confidently and positively that the players of this country would much more, much rather struggle and fight to win the Heisman award than the Croix de Guerre."

Bill Cunningham of the Boston Post wrote in response, "This country's okay as long as it produces Nile Kinnicks. The football part is incidental." AP reporter Whitney Martin wrote, "You realized the ovation (after his Heisman speech) wasn't alone for Nile Kinnick, the outstanding college football player of the year. It was also for Nile Kinnick, typifying everything admirable in American youth." Another observer said that Kinnick's remarks "tackled Demosthenes and threw Cicero for a 15-yard loss." The University of Iowa recently began playing an excerpt from the speech on the Kinnick Stadium scoreboard before "The Star-Spangled Banner" at every Hawkeye home game.

Minnesota tryout
Nile Kinnick's college choice came down to Iowa and the University of Minnesota. Minnesota was one of the dominant college football programs in the nation, while Iowa was a struggling program. Some sources state that Kinnick traveled to Minneapolis for a tryout with the Gophers, but that the Gophers rejected him. Some even suggest that Minnesota's legendary coach, Bernie Bierman, stated himself that Kinnick was "too small and too slow" to play for Minnesota.

Whether or not this tryout actually took place is unclear. Even as a high school student, Kinnick wrote many letters and kept meticulous journal entries, yet this alleged tryout with Minnesota is never referenced. Nor does Kinnick ever mention the tryout during any of his journal entries or letters when he discusses one of his many games with Iowa against Minnesota. Also, by early 1937, Bierman called Kinnick "one of the finest young backs I have ever seen." That would represent a significant change of opinion on Bierman's part in a very short period of time. One author wrote, "When it was time for college, there was no doubt that Nile would go to Iowa."

The Universities of Iowa and Minnesota have been fierce rivals for a long time, and it is possible that the story of Kinnick's interest in Minnesota was embellished at some point, by fans of either school. Kinnick considered enrolling at Minnesota, but how seriously and whether he actually attended a football tryout is uncertain.

Michigan confession
Another enduring story involves a game between Iowa and Michigan in the late 1930s for the Big Ten Conference title and/or a Rose Bowl berth. Iowa trailed by a few points and threatened to score the winning touchdown on the final play of the game. On the final play, Kinnick was stopped right at the goal line. The officials conferred to discuss if Kinnick had scored, and Kinnick approached the officials to inform them that he had been, in fact, stopped short of the goal, and Michigan went on to win the game.

There are several inconsistencies with this story. First of all, Kinnick's Iowa teams only met Michigan twice, in 1937 and 1939, and at that time, the Big Ten did not send their champion to the Rose Bowl. The Big Ten title was not at stake during the 1937 game for either team, and Michigan did not win the Big Ten title in 1939, even with the victory over Iowa. In retrospect, Iowa could have won the 1939 Big Ten title with a win over Michigan, but Iowa lost the game 27–7, too large a margin for any last-minute Kinnick heroics. Iowa did lose the 1937 game at Michigan by a 7–6 score, but no written account of the game includes this controversial score.

Apocryphal claims about Kinnick's "Michigan confession" likely are rooted in the 1940 Cornell-Dartmouth game.

1939 Notre Dame game
Iowa defeated Notre Dame in 1939, 7–6, in a game that many consider to be Kinnick's signature performance. Iowa's only touchdown was scored when Nile Kinnick switched to right halfback for the first time all season from his usual left halfback spot, and the Notre Dame defense was caught unprepared by the switch. Bill Reichardt, a terrific Iowa fullback who would later be named the Big Ten MVP in 1951, claimed that Al Couppee, Iowa's quarterback, was not in the game on that touchdown play.

Reichardt describes the touchdown this way. "They originally called right halfback Buzz Dean's play in the huddle. But Dean said, 'I can't take it. I've got a separated shoulder.' Then they turned to Kinnick and said, 'Can you take it, Nile?' Kinnick responded, 'I think I've got a couple of broken ribs on my right side, so let's run the play to the left side.'" This story regarding Kinnick's statement about broken ribs and with Kinnick, not Couppee, coming up with the idea for the switch to right halfback is particularly enduring.

It is unlikely that Reichardt's story is true. His story is refuted by almost everyone on the 1939 Iowa team. Couppee states in his autobiography that he was indeed in the game for Kinnick's touchdown. Couppee called a rare huddle, in which Couppee called the play shifting Kinnick to the right halfback position. Teammates Erwin Prasse and George "Red" Frye substantiate Couppee's version, but neither of them refuted that Kinnick was injured on a previous play.

Plans
Kinnick was elected student body president during his senior year at Iowa. A member of the Phi Kappa Psi fraternity at Iowa, Kinnick also maintained a 3.4 GPA. As he neared graduation with a degree in economics, he was one of thirty students selected to the Phi Beta Kappa fraternity, and the university president informed him that he would graduate "with distinction", Iowa's equivalent to graduating cum laude. He gave the commencement speech for the University of Iowa's graduating class in 1940.

Kinnick was the leading vote-getter in the nation for the College All-Star Game, while his coach, Eddie Anderson, was voted in to coach the team against Iowa alum Joe Laws and the NFL champion Green Bay Packers. The Packers defeated the College All-Stars, 45–28. Kinnick scored two touchdowns and kicked four extra points. It was noted that the All-Stars scored four touchdowns while Kinnick was in the game; when he sat on the bench, they mustered just one first down.

Kinnick rejected several lucrative offers to play professional football. He was drafted by the Brooklyn Dodgers, and the team owner offered to pay him a $10,000 annual salary or on a game-by-game basis for $1,000 a game. Instead of going into professional football, he entered the University of Iowa College of Law. After one year of law school, Kinnick ranked third in his class academically.

He also had an interest in politics. Kinnick, himself the grandson of a Governor, spoke before the Young Republicans and introduced 1940 presidential candidate Wendell Willkie at a campaign rally. Kinnick said, "When the members of any nation have come to regard their country as nothing more than the plot of ground on which they reside, and their government as a mere organization for providing police or contracting treaties; when they have ceased to entertain any warmer feelings for one another than those which interest or personal friendship or a mere general philanthropy may produce, the moral dissolution of that nation is at hand." The Marion Sentinel proposed in an article to endorse a presidential run for Kinnick in 1956, the first year in which he would be eligible. While at the University of Iowa he met sculptor Dora Eaton Mason and agreed to pose for a bust. Kinnick had seen a bust of his grandfather in the state house and stated he hoped that someday he would merit the honor to be like his grandfather.

While Kinnick took a year of law school in 1940, he also served as an assistant football coach for the Hawkeyes, aiding the freshman team and scouting upcoming opponents. He accompanied the team to South Bend to see Iowa upset the Irish for the second straight season. According to The Daily Iowan's account, "Nile Kinnick, cool, calm, and collected while he's on a football team, pranced up and down the dressing room almost jabbering in his excitement." He was also an assistant football coach at Iowa in 1941.

Naval service
Kinnick left law school after one year and enlisted in the Naval Air Reserve. After completing a speaking tour of Iowa communities and visiting his parents in Omaha, he reported for induction three days before the attack on Pearl Harbor. He wrote, "There is no reason in the world why we shouldn't fight for the preservation of a chance to live freely, no reason why we shouldn't suffer to uphold that which we want to endure. May God give me the courage to do my duty and not falter." Later, he added, "Every man whom I've admired in history has willingly and courageously served in his country's armed forces in times of danger. It is not only a duty but an honor to follow their example the best I know how. May God give me the courage and ability to so conduct myself in every situation that my country, my family, and my friends will be proud of me."

Kinnick was able to return to Iowa one last time in 1942. He visited Adel and saw his father one final time. He then went to Iowa City and watched Iowa's football game against Washington University from the press box. When the Iowa crowd heard of his presence, they began a loud "We want Kinnick!" chant until he leaned out of the press box with an appreciative wave.

Kinnick was training to be a fighter pilot. "The task which lies ahead is adventure as well as duty," Nile wrote in his final letter to his parents before deploying with the USS Lexington (CV-16) in late May 1943, "and I am anxious to get at it. I feel better in mind and body than I have for ten years and am quite certain I can meet the foe confident and unafraid. 'I have set the Lord always before me, because He is at my right hand. I shall not be moved.' Truly, we have shared to the full life, love, and laughter. Comforted in the knowledge that your thought and prayer go with us every minute, and sure that your faith and courage will never falter, no matter the outcome, I bid you au revoir."

Death
On June 2, 1943, Ensign Kinnick was on a routine training flight from the aircraft carrier USS Lexington (CV-16) off the coast of Venezuela in the Gulf of Paria. He had been flying for over an hour when his Grumman F4F Wildcat developed an oil leak so serious that he could neither reach land nor the Lexington, whose flight deck was already crowded with planes preparing for launch anyway. He followed standard military procedure and executed an emergency landing in the water, but died in the process. Rescue boats arrived on the scene eight minutes later, but found only an oil slick. His body was never recovered. He was one month and seven days away from his 25th birthday, and was the first Heisman Trophy winner to die.

Iowa sportscaster Tait Cummins said, "Kinnick proved one thing, that college athletics could be beautiful. Everything that can be said that is good about college athletics he was. He didn't represent it... he was it."

In a letter to Kinnick's parents, his lieutenant commander Paul Buie wrote, "Having lost all oil the engine, without lubrication, failed, forcing Nile to land in the water." Kinnick's squadron mate, Bill Reiter, also confirmed that the oil leak was so bad that Kinnick was forced to land four miles before he could reach the Lexington. This varies slightly from the often-repeated legend that Kinnick could have made it back to the ship but instead chose to land in the water to spare the ship's crew from danger. While Kinnick gave his life for his country, the decision to land his plane in the water was standard military procedure, and a landing on the Lexington in his situation was an impossibility rather than a deliberately bypassed option.

There is also some uncertainty about exactly how Kinnick died. Reiter was the only person who claimed to have seen Kinnick clear of the plane and motionless in the water. Reiter died three months later. Since Kinnick's body was never found, it is possible that he was still tethered to the plane when it sank. Dick Tosaw, whose brother played high school football with Kinnick, repeatedly pursued the idea of finding Kinnick's plane and making a monument at Kinnick Stadium or Kinnick's first high school, Adel–De Soto–Minburn High School. The possibility, however remote, that Kinnick's body is still with the plane led to overwhelming opposition to Tosaw's efforts; Kinnick's father opposed the idea, saying that it would be like digging up his son's grave. Kinnick's teammates also unanimously opposed the idea. Such strong opposition from Kinnick's teammates, relatives, and fans stopped Tosaw's plans.

Honors
Numerous honors for Nile Kinnick have been created since his death. During the United States occupation of Japan, the Eighth Army renamed Meiji Jingu Gaien Stadium in Tokyo "Nile Kinnick Stadium." A high school in Yokosuka, Japan, for dependents of military personnel is named Nile C. Kinnick High School. The coin flipped at the start of every Big Ten football game bears his image, and each captain of a Big Ten team receives one such coin at the end of the year. Shortly after his death, a memorial fund was established at the University of Iowa in his honor. The Nile Kinnick Memorial Scholarship is awarded annually to outstanding student-athletes at Iowa.

His number #24 has been retired, one of only two Iowa football numbers so recognized (Cal Jones' #62 is the other). He was inducted into the College Football Hall of Fame in the Hall's inaugural year in 1951, one of only two Hawkeye players so honored (Duke Slater was the other).

In 1989, Iowa fans selected an all-time University of Iowa football team during the 100th anniversary celebration of Iowa football. Nile Kinnick was not only selected to the team as a halfback, he was voted the team's MVP, or the most valuable player in the first century of Iowa football. Kinnick was one of just five football players inducted into the Iowa Sports Hall of Fame in the Hall's inaugural year in 1951, joining Duke Slater, Aubrey Devine, Jay Berwanger, and Elmer Layden. In 1999, Sports Illustrated selected Nile Kinnick as the third greatest sports figure in the history of the state of Iowa, behind only Dan Gable and Kinnick's youth baseball teammate, Bob Feller.

College Football News ranked Kinnick as the ninth greatest college football player of all-time. An Iowa City theater produced a play based on Kinnick's life. Four books have been written about Nile Kinnick and the 1939 Hawkeyes.

Sports Illustrated chose Kinnick as a starting defensive cornerback on its all-20th century college football team (players in Kinnick's time played both offense and defense, and sometimes special teams as well). Deion Sanders was the other starting cornerback. The reserve cornerbacks were Rod Woodson, Charles Woodson, Jim Thorpe, and John Lattner.

Renaming Iowa Stadium
Calls to rename Iowa Stadium in Nile Kinnick's honor came immediately after the Heisman trophy winner's death in 1943. In November 1945 the University of Iowa student body voted to rededicate the structure as "Nile Kinnick Memorial Stadium". The other options on the student ballot were "Memorial Stadium" and "Robert Jones Stadium", after the first University of Iowa student to be killed in World War II.

Upon announcement of the student vote the new name was taken up by The Daily Iowan student newspaper, World Almanac, and other sources. However, the student vote was unofficial and efforts to rename the stadium were never pursued by the university.

In 1972 "Nile Kinnick Stadium" was again proposed by Cedar Rapids Gazette sportswriter Gus Schrader, who had previously supported the students' efforts. This time the lobbying campaign was successful, and the stadium was officially renamed later that year.

The Hawkeyes' first home game that year was with Oregon State, and a pre-game ceremony on September 23 made it official: Iowa Stadium became known as Nile Kinnick Stadium. Kinnick's father took part in the ceremony and seemed genuinely pleased.

Kinnick Stadium is the only college football stadium named for a Heisman Trophy winner. In 2006, Iowa finished renovations on Kinnick Stadium. As part of those renovations, the school dedicated a 14 ft bronze statue of Kinnick in front of the stadium on September 1, the day before the opening game. Included in the ceremonies was a speech by head coach Kirk Ferentz, as well as a fly-over of a replication of the plane Kinnick flew in World War II. Iowa also placed a 9 × bronze relief on the wall of the stadium, depicting Kinnick's 1939 game-winning touchdown run against Notre Dame.

title: Nile Kinnick