text:
User:Ground Zero

I am an administrator of Wikipedia.

Including
"Including" does not imply any limitation. "But not limited to" is a legal redundancy. It is unnecessary in everyday writing in that it adds no meaning to the sentence. Merriam-Webster provides this definition:
 * "Simple Definition of include
 * to have (someone or something) as part of a group or total : to contain (someone or something) in a group or as a part of something
 * to make (someone or something) a part of something"

Note that "part of" is used throughout. "Including" by definition implies that a list is incomplete.

We should assume that people will understand the meaning of ordinary English words, like "including". We do not need to drag the text down through redundancy when the meaning of the word is clear. Here is a more detailed explanation from Get It Write Online. It says, in part, "We should use the verb include to preface a list that is not exhaustive.... If we read the definitions of include in reputable dictionaries... we see that the verb "include" is in no way synonymous with the verb "are".... We should not add the phrase "but not limited to" when we use either the verb include or the verbal including because to do so will create a redundancy: the idea that what is being spoken about is "not limited to what is actually said" is inherent in the meaning of the word include itself. The only instance in which the phrase "includes but is not limited to" is acceptable is in a legal document* or a piece of writing that seeks to resemble one. Legal documents* are often intentionally and excessively redundant in their attempt to prevent every conceivable misreading of a passage."

The issue of whether "including" can be reasonably interpreted to mean something that dictionaries says it doesn't can be avoided by replacing "including" with "such as", which unambiguously introduces a non-exhaustive list of examples.

What is wrong with "is currently" and "is presently"?
Grammarist.com says: "The adverb currently is almost always unnecessary. It usually just restates information already conveyed through verb tenses and can be dropped with no loss of meaning." While grammarist acknowledges that "currently can be useful when contrasting current conditions with past or future conditions...." it adds that "such instances are relatively rare."

The present tense tells us what the current condition is of something. We can just let the present tense of the verb do its job without adding a redundant “currently”.

Is there any difference between these pairs of sentences?
 * 1) Barack Obama is currently president of the United States.
 * 2) Barack Obama is president of the United States.

 * 1) The Burj Khalifa is currently the tallest building in the world.
 * 2) The Burj Khalifa is the tallest building in the world.

The second sentence in each pair means the same thing as the first sentence, but it is shorter and simpler.
 * 1) Moscow is currently the capital of Russia.
 * 2) Moscow is the capital of Russia.

Maybe some people think the present tense could be interpreted as meaning a permanent condition unless modified by “currently”. It is called the present tense, not the "permanent tense" for a reason: these sentences aren’t ambiguous, are they? No-one would think that those are permanent conditions. The same is true of the sentences above; Barack Obama is not the eternal president of the United States – he is limited by both the US Constitution and his own mortality.
 * I am sick.
 * It is raining.
 * He is naked.

Is there ever an appropriate time to use “is currently”?

I would answer with a qualified “no”. There are times when clarification can be useful when contrasting current conditions with past or future conditions. In these cases, “is currently” is correct, but “is now” is better because it is shorter and simpler.

For example:
 * The restaurant will be open tomorrow morning, but it is closed now.
 * I was feeling sick this afternoon, but I’m all right now.

In these cases, the present tense on its own isn’t really enough because the reader has just received contradictory information. Adding “now” provide the emphasis to make the situation clear.

In Wikipedia, however, what may be "now" for the writer (e.g., 2013) will not be "now" for the reader if the article is not updated every year. It is better to use, or  , which mark potentially dated statements, and will add an article to the appropriate hidden sub-category of Category:Articles containing potentially dated statements.

What about "is presently"?

“Presently” has traditionally meant “soon” or "imminently", although many people are now using it to mean "now". Will your reader know which meaning you intend? Or could it be confusing? For this reason, it is best to avoid "presently". If you are using it to mean “now”, it probably isn’t needed anyway, for the same reason that “is currently” is redundant.

"was previously" vs. "used to be"
"Used to be" is a "modal verb". It is a perfectly acceptable formation of the verb. It is preferable to "was previously".

Here are some pages that illustrate the use of "used to be":
 * British Council
 * BBC World Service Learning English
 * Cambridge Dictionaries
 * TESOL-direct.com
 * Englishpage.com
 * Myenglishpages.com

Other redundant modifiers
Other examples of redundant modifiers I've come across in Wikipedia:
 * successfully won
 * "successfully" is often added where the verb on its own is unambiguous: "successfully completed", "successfully graduated", etc.
 * officially registered
 * formally inaugurated
 * first/originally created/founded/established/began/introduced
 * could potentially, could possibly

Adverbs
''No part of speech has had to put up with so much adversity as the adverb. The grammatical equivalent of cheap cologne or trans fat, the adverb is supposed to be used sparingly, if at all, to modify verbs, adjectives or other adverbs. As Stephen King succinctly put it: 'The adverb is not your friend.''' -- Jacob Gershman, "Why Adverbs, Maligned by Many, Flourish in the American Legal System", The Wall Street Journal, October 8, 2014

Correct: The boy ran really fast to catch the runaway ball. Incorrect: The boy sprinted to catch the runaway ball. ''Adverbs.... They’re okay once in a while, but in excess they’re an indicator of weak verb choices. In our example, the adverb “really fast” modifies the verb “ran.” But does “really fast” paint a more vivid word-picture for the reader? Use a juicier verb like “sprinted” instead.'' --Grammarly blog

It is a question of style, but I really don't know why we would use a clunky adverb when there is a perfectly good verb form hanging about that is designed for the purpose.

Pleonasm
The phrase "but not limited to" is redundant when used with "including" or similar contructions. The word "including" does not in any way suggest a comprehensive list. Lawyers include it in the wording of legal contracts, but it is unnecessary and wrong in every day writing. If we write Wikipedia like legal contracts are written, people will stop reading it.

This is about whether readers will understand the English word "including". If you use a word that is potentially confusing or may not be understood by many readers, you can hyperlink that word to its definition at Wiktionary. It would be better to re-write the passage to avoid using the word and use plain English instead. I do not think that "including" is such a word. We can assume that Wikipedia readers will have a sufficient grasp of the English language to understand what "including" means, and not require tedious redundancy (see pleonasm) to clarify its meaning.

User page
Why "Ground Zero"? I am a child of the 1980s, and grew up with the threat of nuclear holocaust hanging over my head. My favourite movie is Don McKellar's Last Night about how an array of characters spend their last night on earth before the unexplained end of the world. ("It's not the end of the world: there are still six hours left.")

It did not occur to me when choosing the username that there would be any connection to the September 11 tragedy in 2001 in the United States. I mean no disrespect to its victims or their families.

Bookmarks
Canadian wikipedians' notice board. .VfD Ridings Vandalism. Template:ON-ED

Nice things from nice people
>blush<

Thank you for the editing help with the David Standish Ball article! Bearian 19:56, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Spelling out acronyms
See MOS:
 * Write out both the full version and the abbreviation at first occurrence
 * When introducing a new name in an article, it is good practice to use the full name on its first occurrence, followed by the abbreviated form in parentheses. For example, The New Democratic Party (NDP) won the 1990 Ontario election with a significant majority (first mention of New Democratic Party in the article), and The NDP quickly became unpopular with the voters (subsequent mention).

Spelling out an acronym on first use is not just Wikipedia style, it is standard writing style. It makes writing more accessible to a broader range of readers. Should a reader have to click on a link to find out what an acronym stands for? Why can't we explain to them what it means?

WP:OBVIOUS says “State facts that may be obvious to you, but are not necessarily obvious to the reader.”

The idea of accessibility pops up repeatedly in Wikipedia style manuals and guides: Make technical articles accessible says:
 * Articles in Wikipedia should be accessible to the widest possible audience. For most articles, this means accessible to a general audience.
 * Every reasonable attempt should be made to ensure that material is presented in the most widely accessible manner possible. If an article is written in a highly technical manner, but the material permits a more accessible explanation, then editors are strongly encouraged to rewrite it.
 * Use jargon and acronyms judiciously. In addition to explaining jargon and expanding acronyms at first use, you might consider using them sparingly thereafter, or not at all. Especially if there are many new terms being introduced all at once, substituting a more familiar English word might help reduce confusion (as long as accuracy is not sacrificed).

Explain jargon says:
 * Words and phrases used as jargon by any profession or group should usually be avoided or explained.

As Wikipedia:Writing better articles says:
 * Wikipedia is an international encyclopedia. People who read Wikipedia have different backgrounds, education and worldviews. Make your article accessible and understandable for as many readers as possible. Assume readers are reading the article to learn. It is possible that the reader knows nothing about the subject: the article needs to fully explain the subject.
 * Avoid using jargon whenever possible.

Punctuation

 * Commas make sentences easier to read by grouping the different parts of the sentence in a logical way. There is no shortage of them, but many writers seem loath to use them. Here is a supply for anyone who is concerned about running short. Please help yourself:

Thanks, I took three (so you'll know when to re-order) Bo 17:53, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

 * – IOU seven commas, BigNate37 06:17, 12 July 2006 (UTC) (here have some links for your trouble)
 * Thanks, muchly. Ground Zero | t 19:43, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Borrowed one, will return! 62.77.100.41 21:56, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Here are those commas I borrowed sorry I took so long!  Big Nate 37 (T) 21:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm taking three commas out of the country. And you will never, never, never be able to find them! -The Gnome (talk) 16:51, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Commas are cheap and plentiful. I have added a couple of extra rows so that people won't be shy about taking and using them. Please come back for more when you run out. Ground Zero | t 23:22, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I took five of your commas and I'm going to use them as apostrophes! Bwahaha! Useight (talk) 04:27, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I found a whole bunch of spares separating subjects from predicates, so I'm leaving them here, since this seems to be the local clearinghouse: ,,,,,,,,,, Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:37, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I ran out, so I have borrowed a few of yours. Thanks heaps. Spy007au (talk) 20:10, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I found an unnecessary comma in the Jim crow laws article and placed it in the above list for you. --superioridad (discusión) 06:07, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You and your comma pinko friends think you're so damn clever... concealing your true intentions and sneaking around under the deceptive guise of grammar and "logic" to subvert the natural order of run-on sentences by grouping together words and phrases and clauses so you can methodically implement your insidious collectivist schemes without anyone noticing or even suspecting what you were up to until it was too late to turn back and avoid the everlasting hell of comma -nist enslavement. Well I fixed that! You'll never get away with it now! Cgingold (talk) 22:19, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Many thanks. Feel free to come back for it any time. Ground Zero | t 14:46, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Furthermore, they make articles easier to read for visually impaired people who use screen readers. See the comment that I received about a particular edit:

 * "I thought I was the only one who thought that many wikipedia articles lack commas in the appropriate places. I use a screen reader with a speech synthesizer, which will only pause when there is a comma or colon in the text. Usually, if a sentence doesn't sound right when spoken by the synthesizer, it means that it is missing a comma. I've always believed that a comma should separate two clauses, and therefore should naturally break up a sentence into comprehensible parts. I'm just glad someone agrees with me on this point. Graham 9 July 2005 07:40 (UTC)"

 * I would rather rearrange or split the sentence to avoid the need for a comma. Short, simple, positive sentences - sentences that avoid too many subclauses - are best, in my opinion, although some may disagree, I suppose. Aymatth2 (talk) 03:21, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Copyediting

 * Vigorous writing is concise. A sentence should contain no unnecessary words, a paragraph no unnecessary sentences, for the same reason that a drawing should have no unnecessary lines and a machine no unnecessary parts. This requires not that the writer make all his sentences short, or that he avoid all detail and treat his subjects only in outline, but that every word tell.
 * -- William Strunk Jr., in The Elements of Style (1918)

 * George Orwell’s famous six rules for writing, taken from “Politics and the English Language”:
 * (i) Never use a metaphor, simile, or other figure of speech which you are used to seeing in print.
 * (ii) Never use a long word where a short one will do.
 * (iii) If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out.
 * (iv) Never use the passive where you can use the active.
 * (v) Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word, or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent.
 * (vi) Break any of these rules sooner than say anything outright barbarous.

I have done a fair bit of copyediting around here because many articles are not written clearly. When copyediting, I try to keep in mind that many users will come to the English version of Wikipedia because it is the most complete, even though English may not be their first language. Here are some of the things I keep in mind when editing articles: I hope that my aggressive copyediting doesn't cause offence. If it does, then you should re-read the warning at the bottom of every Edit page:
 * Long sentences can prevent these readers from being able to use Wikipedia. Breaking long, run-on sentences up into separate, concise thoughts can make Wikipedia easier to understand. The Guide to writing better articles says: "Use short sentences does not mean use fewer words. It means don't use unnecessary words, and sometimes using full stops/periods rather than commas."
 * Non-English-speaking people can find sentences with complicated structures very difficult to read. It seems that many Wikipedia writers have an aversion to subject-verb-object sentences.
 * "Which" and "that" are not interchangeable. Each has its own use and conveys different information to the reader. Please see below for more.
 * Initialisms (acronyms) should be spelled in full in the first instance in an article, and not just Wikilinked, i.e., "Member of Parliament (MP)", not " MP ".
 * References to places should include the country in which they are located, e.g., "Quebec, Canada", and not just "Quebec" (at least, until such time as Quebec is an independent country.)
 * If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, do not submit it.

Thank you.

Linking

 * The Guide to writing better articles says: "When you do create links, link only one or a few instances of the same term; don't link all instances of it."
 * Avoiding common mistakes warns against "Over-Wikifying": "Wikipedia thrives on internal links, but keep it within reason."
 * Also, links should be made only where they are relevant to the article, and not to every word. See Make only links relevant to the context.

WP:OVERLINK specifically says:
 * "Unless they are particularly relevant to the topic of the article, it is generally inappropriate to link:
 * plain English words;
 * terms whose meaning would be understood by almost all readers;
 * items that would be familiar to most readers, such as the names of major geographic features and locations, religions, languages, common professions and common units of measurement (particularly if a conversion is provided);
 * dates."

WP:REDNOT says: "Do not create red links to articles that are not likely to be created.... Red links to personal names should be avoided—particularly when the name is reported in a context which might cause readers to hold a low or critical opinion of the named individual. Frequently a red-linked name has been placed in an article, and subsequently a different editor has created an article about an entirely different person with the same or a similar name."

Capitalization of headings
The Wikipedia style for capitalizing headings is to use "sentence case" instead of "title case", e.g.,

 * Important things to know about this subject

not:
 * Important Things to Know About This Subject

This may be unfamiliar to many editors who believe that or have been taught that "title case is the right way to capitalize headings". It isn't the "right way", it is one style. Wikipedia has, for better or worse, chosen to follow a different style, i.e., capitalize the heading the same way you would capitalize any sentence:
 * capitalize the first word,
 * capitalize any proper nouns (people, places, organizations), and
 * begin all other words with lower case letters.

See WP:MSH for more information.

Which or that?
Many Wikipedians use which and that interchangeably. Each of these words has a specific use that conveys different meanings to the reader. Here are a couple of examples to illustrate the difference:

 * A1. My car that is blue needs painting.
 * A2. My car, which is blue, needs painting.

Each sentence tells us something about the car, but the choice of which or that changes the meaning of the sentences.

In sentence A1, the use of that suggests that I own more than one car and therefore must specify that I am talking about a particular car—the blue one. If I left out "that is blue", the reader would not know which of my cars I was talking about.

In sentence A2, I am telling you that I own only one car, and that it needs painting. The fact that it is blue is incidental. I am only adding that in as additional information. I could leave out that information and the sentence would still make sense.

 * B1. The studies that were written by graduate students are well-researched.
 * B2. The studies, which were written by graduate students, are well-researched.

In sentence B1, the reader understands that only some of the studies were written by graduate students. If I were to omit "that were written by graduate students", the sentence tells the reader, "The studies are well-researched". This would be inaccurate, because not all of the studies were well-researched—only those written by graduate students. "[That] were written by graduate students" is essential to the meaning of the sentence.

On the other hand, in sentence B2, the information that the studies were written by graduate students is not necessary for the sentence to convey the correct meaning; in this case, all of the studies were well-written. The fact that they were written by graduate students may be interesting, but the central point of the sentence, that the studies were well-written, would still be clear even without that additional information.

Summary:

 * Use that when the information is essential to the meaning of the sentence.
 * Use which when it is not essential.

Also note that because which introduces incidental information, unlike that, it is typically preceded by a comma.

As well as
This really means "and", doesn't it?

WP:ATE says:
 * Articles should use only necessary words. This does not mean using fewer words is always better; rather, when considering equivalent formulations, choose the more concise one. Consider the view of William Strunk, Jr. from the 1918 work, The Elements of Style:
 * Vigorous writing is concise. A sentence should contain no unnecessary words, a paragraph no unnecessary sentences, for the same reason that a drawing should have no unnecessary lines and a machine no unnecessary parts. This requires not that the writer make all his sentences short, or that he avoid all detail and treat his subjects only in outline, but that every word tell.
 * Reduce sentences to the essentials. Wordiness does not add credibility to Wikipedia articles. Avoid temporary expressions like "due to the fact that" in place of "because", or "at the present time" for "currently". The ideal method of specifying on-going events is "as of 2009". Wikipedia "grammar bots" will replace these types of expressions with correct wording.
 * Conciseness does not justify removing information from an article. The use of subjective qualifiers should be avoided.

My work

 * See: User:Ground Zero/Articles

Vandalism of this page
This page has been vandalized about a dozen times. I have listed some below, but I've stopped updating the list because the vandalism was generally boring.

1. 15 June 2005 -- an anonymous editor, who did not like the user name I had chosen, wrote: "shut up! it's a disgrace to real american heros who died on that day to have you digrace their fine memory with this kind of liberal bullshit! Find a new name or just move to frace, oh sorry canda, they have socialism there, you'd like it"
 * As noted above, and in the Ground Zero article, the term pre-dates September 11 and has a much broader usage. The headline on 29 August 2005 edition of the New Orleans Times-Picayune newspaper was "Ground Zero", in reference to the damage wrought by Hurricane Katrina. I think that the vandal must be too young to remember the use of the phrase prior to 2001.
 * His edit summary went further to call me a "liberal fucktard". I am actually a Red Tory fucktard.

2. 31 August 2005 -- User:BillGates (probably not the real one) edited my page so that it read, "A flaming homosexual since a week ago last Saturday." This is a blatant lie: I have been a flaming homosexual since 1992.

3. 24 February 2006 -- my page was vandalized twice by 209.226.122.156 and 209.226.122.158. The first vandalism was spam, the second was more personal: "Since he likes the internet site http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raymond_Samuels We decided to start to gather information for an internet site page for Kevin... another Wikipeda hypocrite that goes by the rather pathetic geekish username GroundZero.. Kevin (we will withold last name for now) is in his mid 20's... about 24, single, who lives in Mississauga, while Tawkerbot is from Vancouver. His hair appears to be black.  He is not very tall, and could use some exercise, and he could also some vitamins for his complexion.  Yeah Kevin, maybe you should get off of typing all day on your computer keyboard, and get some excerise.  It get out a little more also. You would probably have a better social network if you got out a little more also, according to reliable sources."
 * I'd be quite happy to be 24 again, but not if I had to live in Mississauga. You are free to believe what you want of this. Of course, it doesn't matter what anyone believes about me because I am not a public figure, and have no Wikipedia article, unlike Raymond Samuels, who appears not to be playing with six men on the ice. Ground Zero | t 13:49, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

If you're going to go to the effort of vandalizing my user page, make it worthwhile. Post something funny or creative. Thanks.

Notability
WP:NOTABLE, an essay on notability, states clearly (in bold text): "There is no official policy on notability."

Further, there is no consensus that "notability" should be a criterion for inclusion. See the grounds for deletion at Deletion policy, and, for interest, Jimbo Wales' view on notability, as expressed in the poll where notability failed to become an accepted reason for deletion.

 * Disclosure: I previously wrote using the user name "Kevintoronto".

Hello! Please add your comments to the bottom of my talk page instead of here. Thank you.

title: User:Ground Zero


text:
1799–1800 papal conclave

The papal conclave that followed the death of Pius VI on 29 August 1799 lasted from 30 November 1799 to 14 March 1800 and led to the selection of Cardinal Barnaba Chiaramonti, who took the name Pius VII. This conclave was held in Venice and was the last to take place outside Rome. This period was marked by uncertainty for the papacy and the Roman Catholic Church following the invasion of the Papal States and abduction of Pius VI under the French Directory.

Pope Pius VI
Pius VI's reign had been marked by tension between his authority and that of the European monarchs and other institutions, both secular and ecclesiastical. This was largely due to his moderate liberal and reforming pretences. At the beginning of his pontificate he promised to continue the work of his predecessor, Clement XIV, in whose 1773 brief Dominus ac Redemptor the dissolution of the Society of Jesus was announced. Pro-Jesuit powers remained in support of Pius, thinking him secretly more inclined to the Society than Clement. The Archduchy of Austria proved a threat when its ruler, Emperor Joseph II, made internal reforms which conflicted with some of the power of the Papacy. Further, German archbishops had shown independence at the 1786 Congress of Ems, but were soon brought into line.

At the outbreak of the French Revolution Pius was compelled to see the independent Gallican Church suppressed, the pontifical and ecclesiastical possessions in France confiscated, and an effigy of himself burnt by the populace at the Palais Royal. The murder of the republican agent Hugo Basseville in the streets of Rome (January 1793) gave new ground of offence; the papal court was charged with complicity by the French Convention, and Pius threw in his lot with the First Coalition against the French First Republic.

The State of the See

In 1796 Napoléon Bonaparte invaded the Italian Peninsula, defeated the papal troops and occupied Ancona and Loreto. He did not continue and conquer Rome, as the French Directory ordered, being aware that this would not win favour among the French and Italian populations. Pius sued for peace, which was granted at Tolentino on 19 February 1797. The Treaty of Tolentino transferred Romagna to Bonaparte's newly formed Cispadane Republic (founded in December 1796 out of a merger of Reggio, Modena, Bologna and Ferrara) in a hope that the French would not further pursue the Papal lands. Several reforms were made in the French-controlled regions, where much property of the Church was confiscated.

On 28 December 1797, in a riot created by some Italian and French revolutionists, the French general Mathurin-Léonard Duphot of the French embassy was killed and a new pretext furnished for invasion.

Louis Alexandre Berthier marched to Rome, entered it unopposed on 13 February 1798, and, proclaiming a Roman Republic, demanded of the pope the renunciation of his temporal authority. His actions were at the direction of the French Government, at that time the Directory. Pius refused and was taken prisoner. On 20 February he was escorted from the Vatican to Siena, and thence to the Certosa near Florence. The French declaration of war against Grand Duke Ferdinand III of Tuscany led to Pius' removal, though by this time deathly ill, by way of Parma, Piacenza, Turin and Grenoble to the citadel of Valence, where he died six weeks later, on 29 August 1799. Napoleon was not directly involved. He was in the Near East, and did not return to France until November 1799, when he conducted the coup-d'état of 9 November (18 Brumaire).

The Conclave
With the loss of the Vatican and the pope's other temporal power, the cardinals were left in a remarkable position. All had been expelled from the city of Rome by the French occupying authorities. They were forced to hold the conclave in Venice. This followed an ordinance issued by Pius VI in 1798, which established that when a conclave could not be held in Rome it would be held in the city with the greatest number of cardinals.

The Benedictine San Giorgio Monastery in Venice was chosen as the location for the conclave, and the voting would be held in its night chapel. The city, along with other northern Italian lands, was held by the Archduchy of Austria, whose ruler Francis II, Holy Roman Emperor, agreed to defray the costs of the conclave. Since the Secretary of the College of Cardinals was unable to leave Rome to attend, the cardinals elected, in an almost unanimous vote, Msgr. Ercole Consalvi as Secretary in his place. Consalvi would prove an influential figure in the election.

The conclave began on 30 November 1799 and the assembled cardinals could not overcome a stalemate between Bellisomi and Mattei until March 1800. Thirty-four Cardinals were present at the start, with the late appearance in conclave on 10 December of Cardinal Franziskus Herzan von Harras, who was also the imperial plenipotentiary of Francis II. He bore the Imperial commands, the first of which was to get Cardinal Alessandro Mattei elected Pope. Strangely, by 28 December 1799 Cardinal Herzan had not yet presented his credentials as Imperial plenipotentiary to the College of Cardinals, and thus had no special status.

Cardinal Carlo Bellisomi, the Bishop of Cesena, seemed a viable candidate (papabile), with some eighteen committed votes. His unpopularity among the Austrian faction, however, who preferred Cardinal Alessandro Mattei, the archbishop of Ferrara, subjected Bellisomi to the "virtual veto", since the Mattei faction had sufficient numbers to deny Bellisomi a canonically required two-thirds vote.

The conclave considered a third possible candidate, Cardinal Hyacinthe Sigismond Gerdil CRSP but Austria had rejected him from before the beginning of the Conclave as too old—he was eighty-two. As the conclave was in the third month Cardinal Maury, who supported neither Bellisomi nor Mattei, suggested Gregorio Barnaba Chiaramonti, OSB Cassin., the Bishop of Imola.

In the middle of February, both Herzan and Maury independently calculated that Chiaramonti had about twelve supporters. On 11 March a frank, private conversation took place between Cardinal Antonelli and Cardinal Herzan, in which each frankly admitted that the candidacies of Calcagni, Bellisomi, Gerdil, Mattei, and Valenti were failures. During the conversation Cardinal Dugnani appeared and suggested that Chiaramonti might be considered; numbers of supporters of Mattei were willing to go over to him. On 12 March the Spanish agent, Cardinal Francisco Lorenzana, received news from Madrid that he had permission to formally exclude Cardinal Mattei. It was unnecessary to do so, of course, since Bellisomi's supporters had already given him the virtual veto. On 14 March, with the support of the active and influential Conclave secretary Consalvi, Cardinal Chiaramonti was elected.

Chiaramonti was, at the time, the bishop of Imola in the Subalpine Republic. He had stayed in place after the assumption of his diocese by Bonaparte's army in 1797 and famously made a speech in which he stated that good Christians could make good democrats, a speech described as "Jacobin" by Bonaparte himself. Though he could not save ecclesiastical reform and confiscation under the new rule, he did prevent the church being dissolved, unlike that in France.

Due to its temporary siting in Venice, the papal coronation was hurried. Having no papal treasures on hand the noblewomen of the city manufactured the famous papier-mâché papal tiara. It was adorned with their own jewels. Chiaramonti was declared Pope Pius VII and crowned on 21 March at the monastery church of S. Giorgio.

A new pope

By the Battle of Marengo on 14 June 1800 the French regained Northern Italy from the forces of Austria. Following this promotion, Bonaparte decided to recognise the new pope and restored the Papal States to those borders set out at Tolentino.

The new pope headed for Rome, which he entered to the pleasure of the population on 3 July. Fearing further invasion he decreed the Papal States should remain neutral between Napoleonic Italy in the north and the Kingdom of Naples in the south. At the time the latter was ruled by Ferdinand IV, a member of the House of Bourbon.

Ercole Consalvi, the secretary of the conclave, was created a cardinal on 11 August and became the secretary of state of His Holiness. On 15 July France officially re-recognised Catholicism as its majority (not state) religion in the Concordat of 1801, and the Church was granted a measure of freedom with a Gallician constitution of the clergy. The Concordat further recognised the Papal States and that which it had confiscated and sold during the occupation of the area. In 1803 the reinstatement of the Papal States was made official by the Treaty of Lunéville.

Napoleon pursued secularisation of smaller, independent lands and, through diplomatic pressure, the dissolution of the Holy Roman Empire (1806). The relations between the Church and the First French Empire declined following the pope's refusal to divorce Jérôme Bonaparte and Elizabeth Patterson in 1805. The newly crowned emperor of the French restarted his expansionist policies and assumed control over Ancona, Naples (following the Battle of Austerlitz, installing his brother Joseph Bonaparte as its new king), Pontecorvo and Benevento. The changes angered the pope, and following his refusal to accept them, Napoleon, in February 1808, demanded he subsidise France's military conflict with the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. The pope again refused, leading to further confiscations of territory such as Urbino, Ancona and Macerata. Finally in 1809, on 17 May, the Papal states were formally annexed to the First French Empire and Pius VII was taken to the Château de Fontainebleau.

List of participants

 * Gian Francesco Albani, da Urbino, bishop of Ostia and Velletri
 * Henry Benedict Stuart, bishop of Frascati
 * Leonardo Antonelli, bishop of Palestrina
 * Luigi Valenti-Gonzaga, bishop of Albano
 * Francesco Carafa di Trajetto
 * Francesco Saverio de Zelada
 * Guido Calcagnini, bishop of Osimo e Cingoli
 * Bernardino Honorati, bishop of Senigallia
 * Andrea Gioannetti, archbishop of Bologna
 * Hyacinthe Sigismond Gerdil, CRSP
 * Carlo Giuseppe Filippo di Martiniana, bishop of Vercelli
 * Alessandro Mattei
 * Franziskus Herzan von Harras
 * Giovanni Andrea Archetti, Archbishop-bishop of Ascoli Piceno
 * Giuseppe Maria Doria Pamphili
 * Barnaba Niccolò Maria Luigi Chiaramonti, OSB, bishop of Imola (Elected Pope Pius VII)
 * Carlo Bellisomi, bishop of Cesena
 * Carlo Livizzani Forni
 * Francisco Antonio de Lorenzana, archbishop of Toledo, Spain
 * Ignazio Busca
 * Stefano Borgia
 * Giambattista Caprara
 * Antonio Dugnani
 * Ippolito Vincenti-Mareri
 * Jean-Sifrein Maury, Archbishop of Paris, France
 * Giambattista Bussi de Pretis, bishop of Jesi
 * Francesco Maria Pignatelli
 * Aurelio Roverella
 * Giulio Maria della Somaglia
 * Antonmaria Doria-Pamphili
 * Romualdo Braschi-Onesti
 * Filippo Carandini
 * Ludovico Flangini Giovanelli
 * Fabrizio Dionigi Ruffo
 * Giovanni Rinuccini

List of absentees

 * Christoph Anton von Migazzi von Waal und Sonnenthurn, archbishop of Vienna, Austria
 * Dominique de La Rochefoucauld, archbishop of Rouen, France
 * Joannes-Henricus de Franckenberg, archbishop of Mechelen, Belgium
 * Louis-René-Eduard de Rohan-Guéménée, archbishop of Strasbourg
 * Giuseppe Maria Capece Zurlo Theat., archbishop of Naples
 * Vicenzo Ranuzzi, bishop of Ancona e Umana
 * Muzio Gallo
 * José Francisco de Mendonça, patriarch of Lisbon, Portugal
 * Antonio de Sentmenat y Castella, patriarch of the Western Indies, Spain
 * Louis-Joseph de Laval-Montmorency

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

title: 1799–1800 papal conclave


text:
Talk:Pulmonary alveolus

My
My understanding was that the CO2 exchange was based on sodium bicarbonate and that carbon dioxide does not bind to red blood cells. Perhaps this can be checked and this page updated? CustardJack — Preceding undated comment added 13:06, 8 April 2005 (UTC)
 * No, only 70% of CO2 is exchanged to sodium bicarbonate. Roughly 23% binds to hemoglobin. The remaining 7% travels dissolved in the plasma. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blyndon (talk • contribs) 06:10, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Hm. My physiology lecture notes say 10% CO2 in solution, 85% as bicarbonate and 5% stuck to proteins such as Hb. Orimlig 04:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

 * Just editing out the blabber by some immature kiddie. Exigence 02:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

guys whats the meaning of gas exchange in plANTS .I seriopusly need your help.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.167.134.115 (talk) 08:14, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

alveoli disease?
Is there a disease in which the alveolus don't work because the gas exchange is only one way? It is said it is something irreversible. Is there a name for this disease? Marisol Meyer — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.136.43.34 (talk) 23:17, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

When there is fluid or fibrotic tissue in the alveoli the oxygen delivery to the blood will be affected before the removal of carbon dioxide. Thus hypoxemia (low oxygen in the blood) will happen, without significant hypercapnia (high carbon dioxide in the blood). This occurs because carbon dioxide diffuses more rapidly due to a greater gradient. Often the effects of such diseases are most aparent during exercise — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.231.110.50 (talk) 20:30, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I am currenly doing a science test, and one of the questions is "Describe how the alveoli are specialized to help oxygen enter the blood." I don't know the answer! Does anyone know? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.59.222.22 (talk) 19:36, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Answer: Alveoli have different types of cells that assist with gas exchange. The "type 2" cells produce surfactant which reduces the surface tension in the alveolus, this prevents the alveolus from collapsing and allows the structures to remain patent (open and ready to exchange gas). The other type of cell is type 1 and is a very thin and delicate membrane that provides the interface for gas exchange. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.231.110.50 (talk) 20:25, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Typing error under 'Chronic bronchitis'?
Everyone agrees that the word broncholiotes under 'Chronic bronchitis' is a typing error for bronchiolites? 131.224.251.68 13:44, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Looks that way to me. susato 14:46, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Alveolar walls 0.2 microns in thickness?
This looks way too small, if the 0.1 mm (100 micron) radius is correct, the photomicrograph indicates that the walls would be about 10-20 microns thick. Mammalian cells are bigger than 0.2 microns, usually 10-20 microns at least. (Bacterial cells are 1-2 microns in size) Furthermore, the alvelolar walls contain capillaries through which erythrocytes (radius 6-8 microns, thickness 1-2 microns) pass. Please clarify -- Thanks! susato 14:46, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Followup: http://www.lab.anhb.uwa.edu.au/mb140/CorePages/Respiratory/respir.htm  has some good images and a claim that the alveolar wall is around 2 microns in thickness. susato 15:17, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

gasbags
Should this say that:

"The alveoli are found in the respiratory zone of the gasbags" ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matronlulu (talk • contribs) 17:37, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Simple english
Could some of the respiratory pages be created in simple english. I'm doung this for a school project, and don't have a clube what half of the terms mean. Or just a section explaining what the alveoli DO...? The ilovebigcats (talk) 12:55, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

redirection error?
Problem: When i wikipedia "alveolar sac" im redirected to alveolus, however these two are not the same. Dorland's defines alveolus as, "... small polyhedral outpouchings along the walls of the alveolar sacs and alveolar ducts" and therefore "alveolar sac" would consist of the chamber directly preceding the alveolus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lasse9477dkimedepauw (talk • contribs) 12:24, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

alveoli
With reference to number of alveoli: text books (GCSE/O level textbooks and A level text books) quote a TOTAL of 300-350 million alveoli in both lungs NOT each in lung. Total surface area of 90-100m2 does agree with text books. Just wanted to put forward this point. Maybe someone might clarify. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.232.213.63 (talk) 13:22, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

alveolar surface
The source quoted at the point where it is stated that there is a total of 100 m^2 of surface area created by the alveoli relates that there is an approximate surface of 75 m^2. It seems odd to me that the reference actually states another piece of information, especially since 75 m^2 is used just below. I do express my uncertainty at this, I am by no means a doctor or medical student, but this oddity struck me and something seems wrong. Just to be clear: source 5 leads to two pages which relate that the total surface of the alveoli equals about 75 m^2, while it is used to validate the information on the wiki, which states that this surface is 100 m^2. The oddity continues because 75 m^2 is mentioned again about three sentences further on in the text.

Note: I have never contributed to wikipedia before so I am sorry if I have not succesfully followed the code of conduct.

156.83.1.251 (talk) 08:16, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

You're right; the text should correspond to the reference.

The next reference (75 m^2) links to a creationist advocacy site's review of the text, rather than the textbook's publisher

Further in the text, we have "about 80 square meters," no reference.

Looks like some cleanup is needed.

148.61.78.45 (talk) 12:32, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The fact of the matter is that there is no magisterial reference whatsoever deriving the lung total tissue/air area from the alveoli count. The fractally subdivided airways themselves do not present an insignificant surface area that must be taken into account for their contribution to, for example, the extent of any pathological process that might need to be addressed in treatment or theory.
 * To be topical, Jan. 2 2021, a covid-19 virus can land anywhere along the way from the nasal passages to the bronchi to the alveoli. JohndanR (talk) 18:51, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * See https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4919356/
 * "Measurements of Deposition, Lung Surface Area and Lung Fluid for Simulation of Inhaled Compounds" 2016
 * §"Absorption area" JohndanR (talk) 19:05, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Alveolar cells
Better placed as a single article; confusing to have two separate articles Tom (LT) (talk) 19:10, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Support --Iztwoz (talk) 16:14, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Alveolus/alveoli shouldn't redirect here
As indicated by the many entries at Alveolus (disambiguation), this is not the only, or even main, meaning of the word. Therefore those terms should not redirect here. FunkMonk (talk) 11:56, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Hello FunkMonk - there is a hatnote on the page to refer to Disambig page for other uses. It may be the most searched for ? --Iztwoz (talk) 14:32, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * That doesn't explain why those terms should redirect here. FunkMonk (talk) 18:51, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * FunkMonk Have looked again and tend to agree with you - have changed redirect to the disambiguation page - If alveolus was to redirect to pulmonary alveolus then pulmonary alveolus ought to be the primary topic and named alveolus. However I left alveoli as it's the usual plural? --Iztwoz (talk) 20:22, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
 * But have just looked at disambiguation page and there are other terms that use the plural so shall go ahead and change that redirect. best--Iztwoz (talk) 20:25, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

What does this bit mean?
"They are located sparsely on the respiratory bronchioles, line the walls of the alveolar ducts, and are more numerous in the blind-ended alveolar sacs."

Is this really saying that there are alveoli elsewhere than in the alveolar sacs? If so is there a source for this information? It contradicts what is shown in the diagram, and what every independent source I can find says about the subject, to the extent that I wonder if the sentence has been taken out of context and "they" is not actually supposed to refer to alveoli - for example it would make sense if it was about capillaries. HairyDan (talk) 23:06, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, this is saying that there are alveoli elsewhere than in the alveolar sacs. The alveolar sacs are specialized to have tons of alveoli. But alveoli, which are the specialized structures that are responsible for gas exchange, are also located in fewer amounts in the alveolar ducts and even in the respiratory bronchioles. Although I also do not have a source for this, as a pediatrician, I happen to believe this has to be true just because I know that 24-week premature babies do not have air sacs - they barely just have respiratory bronchioles - and it is only because these respiratory bronchioles have a few alveoli that they are able to get enough oxygen and survive if you give them extra oxygen or put them on a ventilator. These respiratory bronchioles then develop alveolar ducts and then after that develop alveolar sacs. We know that respiratory bronchioles must contain alveoli because otherwise, premature babies at 24 weeks would not be able to get any oxygen even if placed on a ventilator.

This article from the British Lung Foundation states that the alveolar sacs form at 32 weeks. https://www.blf.org.uk/support-for-you/how-childrens-lungs-grow Note that this article also seems to confuse alveoli with alveolar air sacs. So you're not the only one that is confused. Even the British Lung Foundation can easily make this mistake. But the alveoli (microscopic structures) are located within the alveolar air sacs (pockets at the end which you can see). This just gives me the idea to add this concept of lung development in here. I think when alveoli form in embryonic development is kind of important on the article of alveoli.

Another piece of evidence that respiratory bronchioles contain at least a few alveoli is the very fact that they are called respiratory bronchioles. These are the only bronchioles (tubes in the lungs) that can actually breathe! They can breathe because they contain alveoli. --Beezer137 (talk) 19:58, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

 * Added supporting ref from Structure section.--Iztwoz (talk) 17:39, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 12 September 2021

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Nominator withdrew the proposal after the discussion below. Thank you all, for keeping the discussion intellectual, and polite. —usernamekiran (talk) 15:39, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Pulmonary alveolus → Lung parenchyma – There is no page at the moment which is often referred to, and since all alveoli make up the parenchyma, new page would be a good parent page. It would easily also be a better target for other structures at the moment included in Pulmonary alveolus page such as alveolar ducts, and sacs. Iztwoz (talk) 20:30, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi Iztwoz, I respectfully disagree with this move proposal. Pulmonary alveolus is in my mind an independently notable concept worthy of an encyclopedic article that I think many readers will be searching for individually. If we do need a lung parenchyma article in my opinion we should call it Lung tissue for consistency with other articles. Tom (LT) (talk) 07:50, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks Tom! Lung tissue would absolutely be the better page. It would have to feature most of the alveolus page but suppose that would work.--Iztwoz (talk) 09:22, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

 * Withdraw - Would like to withdraw proposal in view of comments above.--Iztwoz (talk) 09:19, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Claim not supported by citation
In the section "Clinical Significance", subsection "Surfactant", third sentence, it reads:

"The severe condition of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is caused by a deficiency or dysfunction of surfactant".

According to the reference 26 cited right after, that is not true. While ARDS is accompanied by deficiency or dysfunction of surfactant, this is not the cause for ARDS. Rather, several heterogeneous conditions cause ARDS, which has surfactant dysfunction as one of the mechanisms responsible for some symptoms like atelectasis and difficulty breathing. 168.197.244.246 (talk) 12:56, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Pulmonary alveolus


text:
Talk:1977 Nestlé boycott

Tags
I have removed the "outdated" tag since this article now references events less than one year ago. --216.58.90.192 (talk) 00:13, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Since this page has now been separated from the main Nestle article, I see that one of the most important aspects of the boycott has been left out, which I had suggested as an edit to the other article: WHY are these products dangerous in third world countries? Apparently, it's because they have to be mixed with water, which in many of these places, is contaminated (although this makes me wonder what adults drink then, if they can't drink the water).

Here's the text from the original article:

In Nestlé's case, this has centered on its apparent recommendations for nursing mothers to switch to its infant formula milk products, leading to the alleged deaths of about 1.5 million babies each year as a result of formula being mixed with contaminated water.

If this is indeed accurate, I think it needs to be placed in this article. Otherwise, it leaves it up to the reader to guess why people are boycotting. Thanks. --Birdhombre 13:06, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Just fyi: a microbe that an adult's immune system can withstand may kill a newborn; that's why one must sterilize water before mixing formula. Besides being relatively free of such microbes, breastmilk passes the mother's antibodies to the child. 69.114.164.41 (talk) 19:40, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

A thought and a comment
First the thought: if the boycott is still current, state this at the very beginning with a jump link to the relevant bit of the article. Saying that it started in 1973 suggests that it cannot still be going on. It looks like it is, and it looks like it should be, so make this clear.

Second the comment, on the comment below this. Blaming anyone else for Nestle's obvious bad behaviour is disgusting. Giving free samples and lies (either paid for by giving money to nurses to encourage giving out the samples etc or by insinuation) to uneducated and poor mothers in hospital is taking advantage; it is purely money making and immoral. And they hardly need the money.

It might as well be crack - because once they mothers have been using it, by the time they leave the hospital they are unable to provide the milk themselves and have to rely on this product. They are in effect addicted, but even more tied in. Unless Nestle are going to provide the means (for free or in the existing price) to make the formula safely they are or were breaking international law. There is no defence. Their behaviour is just the same as a drug dealer giving free samples to get people hooked.

I find this article, and the boycott itself [offensive language removed]
2 of the 3 flaws with this aren't Nestle's fault. 1 is the fault of the country, 1 is the fault of the mothers. And no company should be held accountable for a user not following their directions. And the 3rd flaw appears to be false

A Response to your [offensive language removed]: This company is not dealing with some rich Americans who sit around watching TV or going on wikipedia all day, these mothers are people who have had no education. On the other hand, the Nestle corporation only does this in countries where they are more powerful than the governments in place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.66.20.15 (talk) 21:03, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

 * If you give the directions in a foreign language... PuercoPop (talk) 03:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

i changed the title of this section to remove ableist language 99.233.152.171 (talk) 02:33, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not to be filitered you {personal attack}. Matt  unsigned and undated edit by Matt re-edited by SmithBlue (talk) 08:31, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * "Offensive language removed? What is this a children's play area? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C7:6393:B201:454E:1ACD:3999:37E5 (talk) 23:36, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

My rewrite
I have attempted to improve the format of the article as well as to provide background information on what the central issue of the boycott is. I realize the article is somewhat one-sided and does not provide Nestlé and it's supporters side of the issue. If someone does either have that info to add or would like to locate it then please insert into the article. --Cab88 09:42, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Awesome, thanks for the additional info! As it turns out, I just happened to be reading about this issue yesterday in the book Why Decisions Fail by Paul C. Nutt, and it basically said all the things you did. Thanks. --Birdhombre 13:23, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ahem, there's still a pretty big mistake in the second section. "Nursing mothers would accept the free samples, which in tern caused their breasts to cease producing breast-milk due to insufficient and thus forcing them to continue using formula despite the sanitary and cost issues. " Said section has redundant material, and this line doesn't even make sense.. or i'd rewrite it. also has a typo (tern is a bird)

POV Check removed
I've removed the POV Check marker, as I do not believe that this article is biased; it seems to contain an accurate summary of the claims made by campaigners in regard to Nestle, and the fact that it does not contain Nestle's side of the story does not in itself warrant a POV marker.

Actually, the article IS biased in that it does not provide Nestlé's responses. ~ A reader

Yep - totally one sided

I agree ~ another reader —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.225.165.105 (talk) 13:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

It is not neutral at all, but as the users of wikipedia are by and large green scum, and its them who campaign for free speech, us sensible conservatives get silenced —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.105.202.235 (talk) 13:58, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Infant deaths
The article says "This is alleged to have led to the deaths of about 1.5 million babies." Two things need clarification: Haakon 2 July 2005 09:55 (UTC)
 * Who alleges this, what's the source?
 * It used to say (and still does, in Nestlé) 1.5 million each year, while as it stands here, it means 1.5 millions accumulated. I don't know which is correct (and if either of them are, it is pretty horrible), but the difference is significant and we should clarify this.

 * Ok, I did some research and rewrote the paragraph. I made some points clearer (IMO), and added that the 1.5 million figure is indeed per year. Sources:, , . Haakon 2 July 2005 17:36 (UTC) This site is null, not working, and does not exist. ..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Edit_summary Note that all these sources given are based on the campaign figures of the people running the nestle boycott and so are not really impartial.

Nestle may indeed be playing a role in pushing their products more than is in the interests of the developing worlds health - In fact despite their published policies they still seem to be a bit of a bad guy. But quite frankly laying this many deaths solely at their door is beyond the bounds of credibility.

I agree with the two comments above. The highly biased source of "Baby Milk Action" erroneously claims figures from UNICEF to back their extremely high claimed death toll of 1.5 million. They say: "It has been estimated that improved breastfeeding practices could save some 1.5 million children a year," which is not the same as saying that Nestle or any other formula manufacturer is responsible for these deaths. 1.5 million children die each year because they don't get access to breast milk for a WIDE range of reasons, which may include the use of formula by mothers, but may ALSO include malnutrition of the mother, poor health of the mother - eg. persistent mastitis and no access to antibiotics, the mother's inability to produce breast milk or afford a substitute, such as formula, poor breast feeding counsellings, development problems in the infant, premature birth (common in developing countries), sickness or fever which causes inability to suck milk from a breast or a feeble draw (common where children are born without a skilled attendant), infant allergies to breast milk or early weening practices.

"Improved breast feeding" practices include a wide variety of tactics, which may include discouraging the use of formula, but will also include measures such as providing midwifes with breast feeding counselor training, ensuring mothers feed on demand, feed 100 percent breast milk (no water, especially in developing countries where supplies may be dubious), are fit and healthy enough to produce breast milk and most importantly ween children to food much later.

In many developing countries, such as the one I work in - the main battle is to convince mothers to continue breast feeding past the third month - and delay feeding infants rice - which is part of the indigenous culture. This has nothing to do with infant formula.

It is also worth remembering that most women in the developing world, especially in rural areas, do not give birth in a hospital. Therefore it would be rather hard for the big baddie Nestle to hand out free formula and "get them hooked" as is alleged. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.136.245.202 (talk) 05:01, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

 * V Good point. I removed the sentence According to UNICEF, if every baby were exclusively breastfed from birth to six months, an estimated 1.3 million additional lives would be saved each year.Fionah (talk) 21:15, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

http://www.waronwant.org/attachments/THE%20BABY%20KILLER%201974.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.247.177 (talk) 03:03, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Cost to the company
Does anyone know much the boycott actually hurts the company financially? Is it in any way significant when compared to their overall revenues? Maccoinnich 18:50, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, this is my question, too, because it speaks to the point. I joined the boycott back in 1977-78 when as a breastfeeding mom and b.f. coach I was concerned about these issues. I kept boycotting until about a decade ago when I came to feel that there had been some economic and PR impact on Nestle, enough to cause changes in practice/policy. Ecomonic impact is usually the motivator for such change. I would like more info on this, since I am currently in a doctoral economics class and a group of us are looking at the success/failure of such efforts as this boycott and why. (4.255.38.152 05:53, 3 March 2007 (UTC))

diarrhea
Are you saing that all 1,5 million cases of deadly diarrhea in third world are caused by using some nestle milk? Diarrhea article says that it is a total number of deaths from diarrhea.

nestle statement 6 april 2006
In The Independent on 6th April, the Nestle UK Chief Press Officer wrote in and stated what can be found on their website here. Briefly: And others.
 * They follow the WHO Code of Marketing of Breast-Milk substitutes 1981
 * They do not advertise or promote milk formula in the developing world
 * They do not have pictures of babies on their packaging
 * They do not give out free samples to hospitals except when requested in very special circumstances

Endorsements
Has anyone ever compiled a list of celebraties who are paid to endorse Nestle products? I know that David Bowie sold his likeness to advertise a Nestle water company. Have there been any others? --Dickmac999 21:52, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Nestle Products
Is it appropriate to provide a link to a list of Nestle products at the Nestle web site? --Dick Mac - Brooklyn, NY 23:01, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Valid
Are these allegations still valid?? Nestle is a Global company afterall....Is it just an anti-Nestle campaign being carried out by some vested interests??? --Muby - Bangalore, India 02:58, 02 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, the allegations are still valid. If you visit the Baby Milk Action website (they are the british organisation who co-ordinate the Nestle boycott) you will be able to find examples of WHO code violations from as recently as May 2006.

80.6.116.174 15:24, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Unexplained initialism
What's an LEDC? I don't think this term should be used without a link to explain it. It's just confusing. --Weeble 14:43, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Apparently it means "less economically developed country." I went ahead and spelled it out and made a wikilink to the initialism. I also changed the two instances of "LEDC countries" to "LEDC" since the former is redundant. --Birdhombre 03:46, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Comments from a passer-by
This article is full of argumentative POV slop and needs to be completely rewritten. A number of alleged "facts" are utter rubbish. This thing is an embarrassment to Wikipedia. •Jim 62 sch• 10:11, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 15.5 years later this kind of article still shows how Wikipedia is run by a load of nonsensical clowns.

Totally disputed
This article contains large blocks of controversial material which lacks a reliable source, is biased and reads like an advertising campaign. It should be totally rewritten and provided with citations.Page Up 19:15, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

 * Can you be more specific so that the problems may be resolved? —Pengo 01:36, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Remove this article
This article is nonsense - get rid of it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.84.252.228 (talk) 11:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC).

 * What specific problems do you have with the article? —Pengo 01:36, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * If you don't know why it's nonsense then you are the problem — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C7:6393:B201:454E:1ACD:3999:37E5 (talk) 23:32, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Section Removed
"Unethical actions of which Nestlé has been accused

Nestlé has been accused by supporters of the boycott of unethical methods of promoting infant formula over breast-milk to poor mothers in third world countries.[citation needed] One major issue is passing out free powdered formula samples to mothers in hospitals.[citation needed] After leaving the hospital, these mothers' breasts will have ceased to produce milk due to the substitution of formula feeding for breastfeeding.[citation needed] This forces the continued use of formula, which can contribute to malnutrition,[citation needed] and under worsened sanitary conditions with contaminated water, often leading to diarrhea. UNICEF alleges this situation results in the deaths of about 1.5 million babies each year. The formula, which is no longer free after the mother leaves the hospital, can for some also put a significant strain on the family's budget."

I removed the above section because after every accusation it has 'citation needed'. Until such a time that citations are available this should not be re-added. I am all in favour of showing the media/organisations who condemn some of Nestle's actions but without referencing how are we expected to sort the unverifiable from the verifiable? If wanted I can try find some references but I will leave enough time for the orginal creator/people more involved in the article's field of work to try. ny156uk 21:56, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Rediculous references
I think this kind of referencing makes Wiki look terrible. They have/are repackaging their complimentary foods, and they have stated clearly that they support breastfeeding until at least 6 months which is what WHO and UNICEF recommend why is this so one sided. There should be more accurate information provided and if it is not cited then it should be removed. If 1.5 Million babies die because they were formula feed Nestle, then maybe someone should make the note that they aren't using clean water, not using enought formula and feeding them with other alternatives. Why is this not discussed? The nurse at the hospital I gave birth said that 40% of women are unable to breast feed or choose not to, for various reasons so I am sure that there are 40% in developing countries. With malnutrition there would some women that need to have an alternative and with mortality rates, unfortunately some babies won't make it. Nicole, Mom in Canada ```` —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.142.61.42 (talk) 04:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC).

Actually, WHO and UNICEF both recommend breastfeeding for 2 years, and after that as long as both mother and baby desire to continue. The AAP recommends 1 year, and thereafter continuing as long as desired. There is no health organization that recommends less than a year. 40% of women in developed countries may choose not to breastfeed, but that is because they see formula as a safe alternative. Less than 2% of women actually physically cannot breastfeed. In third world countries where formula is more dangerous than it is here in North America, a 40% formula feeding rate would be even more tragic. Not to mention added cost for no reason at all.

Edit or Remove this article

This article does not even read like the rest of Wiki. It has a lot of sentences that are the points of view of people who support the boycott, and while their opinions should be noted, as it the whole rason the boycott started, it needs to be edited to show this.

Some of the statements made are very scary for mothers that formula feed their babies, and i feel that they need to be backed up with the appropriate links.

It may also be worth noting that in Britain baby formula is also given out for free at hospitals as well - although this is probably funded by the NHS. I breastfed my daughter but i formula fed my sons, and it was provided in the hospital for the entire duration of my stay. When i left after five days, i eas still producing breastmilk and could have continued had i wanted to.

- actually if a UK hospital wants UNICEF Babyfriendly status they cannot give out formula. Many don't, many also ask mothers to sign a statement that the risks of formula have been explained. Sorry if it's scary for mothers who bottlefeed but withholding the facts does nobody any good. Shall we say smoking doesn't cause cancer too? Formula for example puts babies at 7x a greater risk of childhood cancer. Put the facts out, parents can make informed decision. Not one swayed by marketing or blissful ignorance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.156.64.82 (talk) 21:37, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree that this article needs to be edited, more information given with credible sources, but it should not be removed as it is a long standing international boycott of which, I believe, there is no parallel. I will try and edit and add some substantial references if possible. AmyNelson 12:17 BST 21 May 2007

Having made some edits, I have found it very easy to find sources for the claims, I have no idea why this simple task was not done sooner, perhaps there have been people against the boycott that have attempted to undermine the content on the page, this page has merit and it should be an easy task to improve it further.AmyNelson 12:22, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Free formula

 * The claims include that Nestlé supports or has supported the distribution of free powdered formula samples to mothers in hospitals. After leaving the hospital, these mothers' breasts will have ceased to produce milk due to the substitution of formula feeding for breastfeeding.

Was this claim really made? It seems a bit bizzare to me at least as reported. I would presume most mothers in the developing world are not going to spend very long in hospital unless there were complications. I would guess something like 2-3 days would be something like the norm. While starting to breast feed after 2-3 days would I guess be harder then starting immedietly, would production really have ceased completely by this time? It sounds fairly fast to me... Nil Einne 09:48, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

 * According to IBFAN, "Supplementing breastfeeding interferes with lactation and makes an early end to breastfeeding more likely." Which is a bit less drastic than "ceasing to produce milk". I'll make a change to the wording. Fionah 10:02, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

NPOV and attribution of sources
I’ve made a number of changes to this article, I hope for the better! The main changes are to include references, some rephrasing and reorganizing for clarity, adding Nestlé’s own response to the allegations, plus some extra info about the boycott in the media. I have no connection with either Nestlé or the boycott advocacy organizations, although I did support the boycott in my student days. I think the following guidelines would be useful for keeping this article as NPOV as possible: Also, the following information would enhance the article (if anyone can find it): Looking forward to feedback. Fionah 17:33, 11 June 2007 (UTC) Breastfeeding does have a feedback component, but a free sample isn't going to do this-dozens would increase the chances, but this seems neither reasonable nor unbiased. User:Fiolynlyn 17:43, 11 June 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.116.186.247 (talk)
 * If a claim is made by a boycott support organization, clearly state where that claim is coming from, e.g. by starting with "IBFAN claims…" or "UNICEF alleges… "
 * Where relevant, include Nestlé’s response, again with appropriate attribution e.g. " Nestlé maintains…"
 * Where possible, use the primary source for a claim rather than a quotation from a secondary source. For example, for "UNICEF claims that breast-fed infants are less likely to die of diarrhea", reference the UNICEF web page, not the Baby Milk Action web site where this is quoted.
 * Where possible, use neutral sources such as news reports or medical journals to support or refute claims.
 * The economic impact (if any) of the boycott
 * The global spread of the boycott

small POV correction made in main paragraph
hey folks. i changed the words 'UNICEF alleges' to 'according to UNICEF' since the latter sounds more neutral. 99.233.152.171 (talk) 02:25, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

NPOV - be more specific
Please point out specific problems with the text. Which sentences/sections do you see as non-neutral? Refer to [Wikipedia:Neutral point of view] for details. Fionah (talk) 21:29, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Having read the discussion provided by the tagging editor, I am removing the tag as the issues raised by the tagging editor are not within the areas covered by Wikipedia policy. Please be very specific with what is not in line with policy when tagging - list the words or sentences or paragraphs or sections or exactly what is missing. Thanks. SmithBlue (talk) 09:21, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

UNICEF article stating 1.5 million figure
This is a bit out of date now (2006), but no-one else seems to have found an actual UNICEF article stating the 1.5 million figure, which is here:. Joejtait (talk) 20:28, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Appalling wikipedia page
This wikipedia page is a farce, it is clearly one-sided and makes the boycott look like a scam. Please edit accordingly, only for the sake of the campaign. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.143.111.220 (talk) 14:26, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * , could you be more specific? It's meant to be explanatory, not argue on behalf of either side. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 20:27, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Nestlé boycott. 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.4woman.gov/breastfeeding/index.cfm?page=227

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 12:50, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Nestlé boycott. 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.who.int/gb/ebwha/pdf_files/EB109/eeb10912.pdf
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ibfan.org/english/issue/bfundermined01.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.babymilk.nestle.com/Who%2BCode%2BIssues/Allegations/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.babymilk.nestle.com/News/All%2BCountries/Other/European%2BParliament%2BCommittee%2Bon%2BDevelopment.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.babymilk.nestle.com/Who%2BCode%2BIssues/Nestle%2BCode%2BCompliance/Nestle%2Bcode%2Bcompliance.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.babymilk.nestle.com/Developping%2BWorld/Foreword/
 * Replaced archive link http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:nNXbq5IKee8J:www.nestle.com/asset-library/Documents/R_and_D/Compliance/Independent_Assurance_Statement_by_Bureau_Veritas_Laos.pdf+&cd=4&hl=en&ct=clnk with https://web.archive.org/web/20160203234414/http://www.nestle.com/asset-library/documents/r_and_d/compliance/independent_assurance_statement_by_bureau_veritas_laos.pdf on http://www.nestle.com/asset-library/Documents/R_and_D/Compliance/Independent_Assurance_Statement_by_Bureau_Veritas_Laos.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) 19:44, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Nestlé boycott. 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/20090822082857/http://aappolicy.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/pediatrics;115/2/496 to http://aappolicy.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/pediatrics;115/2/496

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) 00:22, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Nestlé boycott. 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/20050208092054/http://babymilk.8k.com/ to http://babymilk.8k.com/

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) 07:33, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

TIN FOIL HAT TIME!

Isnt it odd how many random, never seen again, never log in, never comment on anything else accounts come here to "completely randomly" argue that none of the charges are real and the article should be taken down. Weird how it doesn't happen anywhere else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.100.130.237 (talk) 01:47, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Wow
The fact that this kind of poorly written article is still on here after so many years shows why most people except for the people running this joint don't actually trust Wikipedia. Sad thing is that 90% of editors are actually good but 10% control it and ruin it and make it a laughing stock fort the world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C7:6393:B201:454E:1ACD:3999:37E5 (talk) 23:35, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 18 March 2022

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved on the grounds of precision. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 02:00, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Nestlé boycott → 1977 Nestlé boycott – Nestlé has been subject to many boycotts. We need to be more specific here. Note that this name may also not be ideal as the boycott lasted longer (but the article is a mess and I am not sure all the boycotts described here are related to this one event...). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 22:34, 18 March 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 02:13, 27 March 2022 (UTC)  — Relisting. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 02:54, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support helpful improvement. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:30, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak Support If you can expand it to show that there are other notable and grand scale incidents of boycotts, then I agree. However, it seems that others are already included in the Controversy section of Nestle main page. Some are not notable like just an aftermath of an incident which does not need an article. Plus as a suggestion, if perchance there will be a lot of similar boycotts like this one, it would be prophylactic to name it to "Nestlé boycott (1977)", especially with the controversy of war in Ukraine if one country declares a widespread boycott maybe in the future. --Likhasik (talk) 17:29, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: WikiProject Discrimination has been notified of this discussion. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 02:13, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: WikiProject Food and drink has been notified of this discussion. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 02:13, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: WikiProject Health and fitness has been notified of this discussion. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 02:14, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: WikiProject Switzerland has been notified of this discussion. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 02:14, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * Support per nom. BD2412  T 04:41, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:1977 Nestlé boycott