text:
Talk:Kief

This is Skuff ! Kiff is different!
The Stuff here described is called "Skuff" ,in Moroco they grind down all Flowers which is left from the Hash-Screen-Production,this is grinded down to fine green Powder,and is used mostly by elder People cause it contains very few THC (around 8%) cause the most Resin from the Flowers was extracted in Hash Production.Kief is just the remainings of Has-Production grinded to Powder.The Skuff described in this Tread has much more THC and is much higher Quality then Kief. Kieff and Skuff has nothing do to with eath other,Stuff is finest Quality and Kieff is most bad Quality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.139.100.22 (talk) 18:54, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

IMHO whomever wrote this story has little experience or knowledge of the subject
FWIW, I live in British Columbia, North America's cannabis capital. I smoke kief on a regular basis, obtaining pure product from my local cannabis club. The author of this article clearly has no experience with the product. It is not "stronger than" thc it IS mostly THC. It is smoked exactly the same way bud is smoked, has exactly the same effects (although due to its purity you don't need to use as much) and does NOT cause hallucinations (unless you also happen to hallucinate from bud itself). It is NOT hash, although mixed with honey oil it is often sold as such, and is pretty much the same high. Anyone who uses an electric bud buster has seen kief - it's that sandy substance that sticks in the bottom cracks of the buster. That crystal that falls off your bud when you shake it? THAT'S kief. 24.67.72.62 (talk) 16:47, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes that sentence was absurd
Not only was that sentence (referenced below) nearly impossible to understand syntactically it was also ridiculously inaccurate, so I removed it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.67.72.62 (talk) 16:38, 17 March 2011 (UTC) 24.67.72.62 (talk) 16:45, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

=Temperature= "The temperature at which kief burns is lower than marijuana, meaning that if kief is consumed as marijuana bud THC will be wasted, or burned rather than ingested."

This is nonsense. THC and other cannabinoids still burn at the same temperature, whether it be in kief or in bud, in leaf or whatever. The actual kief material may burn quicker, but the THC inside isn't going to burn at a lower temperature just because it is "in the kief". Someone needs to correct this. Sorry I don't know how to sign off or any of that shit, I just read this article and felt it needed to be fixed.

Farsi/Persian
I am going to remove the two sentences about the "Persian" word. First off, the language is Farsi, and second, the statement is not cited, has no validity, and harms the article by providing false information. Gone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Garbage Monger (talk • contribs) 13:37, 22 February 2009

Hallucinations
How valid is the statement about cartoon-like hallucinations? I question the validity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.200.192.157 (talk) 21:20, 3 October 2005

Arabic Roots
The arabic word "كيف" kief/kayf means "How?" not "well being". I imagine there might have been a misinterpretation because of the phrase "keif halek?" which means "how are you", or more literally might mean "how is your well-being" (the -ek ending being the posessive suffix for "you"). I don't know about the etymology of the word, but Keif definitely doesn't mean "well-being or pleasure" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.108.94.151 (talk) 21:04, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

No you dummy, let me correct you. Kief does mean "how?" in Arabic, there is no argument about that. Kief also means (literally) "the high", the "pleasurable feeling" - which is usually used in context to refer to getting high from hashish in traditional Egyptian & other arabic languages. Kief, the sandy looking powder that falls off cannabis buds, could be smoked when collected, and is reffered to as Kief because this sandy substance produces the pleasurable feeling of a high (kief). Get it now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.96.37.7 (talk) 23:02, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Kiefer
My surname is Kiefer-I always thought it was the coolest name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.244.174.197 (talk) 22:54, 15 January 2006
 * That is a very cool name HighInBC 20:18, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

 * I wonder if you mind at all that as a name for smokable cannabis product generally, the similar Riefer has been proposed as a replacement for the not-so-American-looking reefer (which was damaged by its association with "madness" in a cynical movie title of the 30's). Rhymes with "briefer" (someone who reads the morning papers and reports to the President).  Your morning toke stirs your associative memory and valid important relevant data are reported to you by the magic of organic processes.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tokerdesigner (talk • contribs) 20:52, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Kief is a type of hashish
there is a section on kief on the Hashish article, perhaps this page should be incoorperated into the Hashish page and this page redirect to it. Anyone object to this? HighInBC 23:54, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

 * I know that hash can be made from kief but I'm not sure that kief doesn't deserve its own article. In fact, kief was on the list of encyclopedic topics that wikipedia needs, so I'd say there is good evidence that no merge should be done. Triddle 15:32, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Hmmm as far as I know the only thing that can differentiate kief from hashish is that sometimes kief is not pressed into a lump... however I still think it is hashish even if left in powder form. How do you define the difference between hashish and kief? HighInBC 16:04, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't really have one, but a lot of articles do link directly to kief which I think indicates it is being thought of separately from hash. I would also think (and it may not be proper) that hash has a wider definition than just pressed kief (soapbar for example). Lastly, people are known to sprinkle kief on their bowls where I'm from and hash is not nearly as common. I really think kief stands to have its own article. Triddle 18:35, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, I am not going to change anything, but I will post a request for comments about this in the Hashish talk page. Please feal free to participate in the discussion there. HighInBC 18:56, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * From my experience, the term kief is reserved exclusively for unpressed trichromes ("crystals", "powder"), whereas hash involves some sort of preparation (i.e. pressing or rolling). I still think the two articles should be merged under Hash, though, with kief given its own subsection, ideally somewhere near the top of the page.
 * Why? There are articles for water, steam, and ice. With logic like this, steam and ice should be merged into water. Triddle 16:59, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
 * No Merge - Kief is totally different from hashish. Hashish is the extracted THC mixed with some pressed plant matter.  It is dark brown and of a gummy, almost tacky consistency.  Kief is the THC crystals which has fallen off of the marijuana plant, is usually lightly colored and comes in powder form.  They are completely different. Zelmerszoetrop 14:08, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

erk

 * Kief is not a type of hash. Kief is the crystals shaken off the buds while hash is an extract. They're two seperate things. If anything, the part on kief in the hash section should be merged with this article.Calibas 00:51, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

i agree that no merge should be made. kief is not hashish, and vice versa. Strawberryfire 13:02, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Kief is definitely not hash! Although it can be used as a raw material for making it, smoking keif is just not smoking hash. A mention of kief in hash making is adequite enough. Matt 07:04, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Hash is activated cannabinoids, and could produce a high if eaten. Kief is inactive, and would not unless heat or pressure is applied before hand to activate the cannabinoids. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.239.211.37 (talk) 22:15, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Discussion of merging
There is a discussion at the Hashish article about merging various hash based articles into Hashish. The discussion has mention this article so I am linking it. Here is the link: Talk:Hashish HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 22:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Unreferenced
I am going to go through this in a day or so and remove much of the unreferenced material. As it is this article does not meet WP:V. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 17:36, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree. --  Szvest   -  Wiki me up ®  17:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

PICTURE
I just added this and it showed up but then was gone seconds later...wtf?

Anyway what I posted was, does the photo really need a red circle drawn around the kief? The kief is the focal point of the picture. Is there a danger we might confuse the kief with the guy's finger or something? Maybe it's just me but that looks dumb and I laughed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.244.58.120 (talk • contribs).

 * We could definitely use a better picture. I don't see any image activity in the article history or your user contrib history so maybe you are doing something wrong or an error occoured with wikipedia, try again. -- Diletante 18:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Uh, just gather some up again, and get closer. Focus in on the crystals. =) Secondly, someone define the bottle toke method on the page, or make its own page, or link it to 'methods of utilizing pot' or something. I don't know what it is, although I can take a guess that it's something I once did in many a forests around my neighbourhood as a kid. If I don't know, I'm sure there must be many others who probably don't. 74.12.10.186 23:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Picture 2 Hashish
I have also posted a picture on this site and it was deleted almost a day later.. I dont know who thinks they run this site but it is a public site.. i believe my picture was much better than "kief on parchment paper" that picture doesnt even look like kief.. as for merging this page into hashish, kief is not hashish it is much purer and gets you way higher.. so ya im gunna post my picture again and it better not be removed or i will have to talk to the moderators or somethin.. anybody who knows what kief is knows its far different than hash and should always have its own page.. I also dont agree with people erasing my contributions on this page as I am a very big pothead and this site is very useful when describing what kief/ tees are and how to get it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brewcetee (talk • contribs) 09:20, 22 March 2007
 * I removed your picture because it was very blurry and low resolution. It was even worse than the one we have currently. Yes this is a public site so you might try proposing changes on the talk page before making them. Also anyone who has made hash (rather than just buy it) will tell you that hash is made from trichomes just as kief is (search around on the internet and see for yourself), I am not going to argue about that. I also take issue with your coffee grinder addition because any such preperation would include much shredded plant material in addidtion to the trichomes. -- Diletante 15:46, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok I will take a better quality picture.. I know how hash is made but the quality of hash depends on how much plant matter is in the hash.. most good hash is 70-80% pure thc.. kief is much purer closer to 90-95%.. i agree the method is almost identical but the high is way different and i still believe it is completely different and deserves its own page.. the coffee grinder method works the best because it is gradual build up resulting in almost 100% thc.. TRY IT — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brewcetee (talk • contribs) 19:29, 22 March 2007

Stop
I have recently re added my contributions to this page i would appreciate it if you people would stop changing it please.. almost nobody has stated their sources so whatever i want my own tee page but im not allowed so stop changing my stuff —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.38.16.90 (talk) 08:42, 5 April 2007

 * You are right that nothing is sourced here. BUT if we allow local slang and practices there is no end to how big this article could grow. There are probably thousands of ways that people consume kief and thousands more slang terms. If you want to share your smoking techniques with others I can recommend several cannabis discussion forums. -- Diletante 15:47, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Older meaning problem
Older sources say that Keif (the most usual spelling used then) was an abstract noun from Arabic generally meaning the state of contentment resulting from having done drugs. See: the former article "Keif" as of 20:00, 27 May 2006.

Currently, Keif is redirected to Kief, and this article does not acknowledge the older meaning except for scattered fragments in the "Regional meanings" section at the end. This should be fixed... AnonMoos (talk) 21:26, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Preparing Kif daily in Morocco
It seems likely that kif means different things for different people - so it's a great pity that the following good information was removed from the article by an anomymous editor. It's from a primary source, but no worse for that.

In the late 1970s, Kif was available freely but surreptitiously in the poorer parts of town, where it was sold through a small hatch. The twigs of the cannabis plant (complete with leaves and seeds) were wrapped into a cone with newspaper. A small quantity of untaxed black tobacco was included, and this was (supposedly) the only part that was illegal.

Smokers in Fez prepared their smoking mixture fresh every day, chopping the twigs/leaves and 10% tobacco mixture on a wooden board. The little spherical seeds are unsmokeable, and were separated out after choppping with a rolling motion on a piece of card. The days supply would be carried in a little leather pouch. The pipe was made from a little cube of stone, with a long, engraved and painted wooden stem.

The use of kif must have been widespread, but it was not often seen in public. In the town of Kenitra, 40 clicks north of Rabat, the most evident place to see it going on was amongst those sitting on the wall outside the local equivalent of the magistrates court. TomRawlinson (talk) 21:37, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Removal of Manufacturing Information

 * That all sounds like a how to guide, which doesn't really belong in an encyclopedia. That's my toke anyway. ;) IvoShandor (talk) 12:18, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Original research removed from talk page, whose purpose is to work on the article, not to disseminate someone's research. - Altenmann >t 15:02, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kief&diff=prev&oldid=349499316

 * The above cited edit removed from a talk page material which, whether "original research" or not, was intended for consideration by other editors for inclusion in the article pending further improvements as needed. Removals from a talk page may violate WP Presumption of Good Faith and standards of Civility.

 * If the material is objected to as "how-to-guide", please note that NOTHOWTO mentions wikiHow and expressly encourages references to it. WP editors can access wikiHow articles and edit them as required to meet standards for inclusion as references in WP.  Entering the following links in the Kief article, especially the one regarding sifting, keeps Wikipedia pages from reading like a how-to guide, while avoiding prejudicial denial of service to readers seeking "controversial" information.

 * http://www.wikihow.com/Make-Smoke-Pipes-From-Everyday-Objects

 * http://www.wikihow.com/Make-a-1/4%22-diam.-Screen-for-a-Single-Toke-Utensil

 * http://www.wikihow.com/Convert-a-Wasteful-Hot-Burning-Wide-Mouth-Chillum-Into-a-Screened-Long-Stemmed-One-Hitter

 * http://www.wikihow.com/Convert-a-Hot-Burning-Big-Bowl-Tobacco-Pipe-Into-a-25-Mg.-Serving-Size-One-Hitter

 * http://www.wikihow.com/Sift-Herbs-for-Smoking-Use

Tokerdesigner (talk) 00:31, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Vaporization
The following information, removed from the article on ground of "irrelevancy", offers needed health advice to users, especially of delicate kief, and includes a link to the vaporizer article cited. "A vaporizer heats herb material only to a subcombustion temperature, about 385°F, protecting against waste of delicate THC and eliminating carbon monoxide and other combustion toxins. A recent study compares this consumption method to smoking.(.")

"An inexpensive variant of the vaporizer, the e-cigarette vaporizes liquid from an insertable cartridge. Kief processed into liquid THC and loaded into an e-cigarette cartridge promises users benefits of vaporization in a convenient portable form." Tokerdesigner (talk) 20:08, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

 * I trust sciencedaily.com as a reliable source and i don't believe the irrelevancy argument is solid. However, the article talks about THC in general and not Kief in particular. That said, I have no big reason to oppose the insertion of the edits. -- FayssalF  -  Wiki me up®  00:44, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Kief-to-e-cigarette technology
Mjpresson (talk) 00:53, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

 * This talk page is for talking about the article "Kief" and improving it, not public health and improving it. Thanks! Hyacinth (talk) 09:40, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Original research
What, why, how, and where "may" this article contain original research? Hyacinth (talk) 09:50, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Almost none of this article is cited. "To demonstrate that you are not adding original research, you must be able to cite reliable published sources that are both directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support  the material as presented." --RDavi404 (talk) 14:07, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

WP:OR
I removed the tag after adding 2 references and cleanup. Not a lot but enough to establish that it's not WP:OR.Mjpresson (talk) 23:33, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

 * "Cleanup" appears to be Mjpresson's private jargon for deleting anything s/he doesn't agree with, meaning chiefly something like the "See also" link to the One-hitter (smoking) article which describes an alternative way to use kief instead of in hot-burning, THC-destroying cigarette papers. Check Mj's "Contributions" page for many similar recent edits including a deletion (May 26) of the Australian Department of Health warning against mixing cannabis with tobacco "which can lead to unintended nicotine addiction".Tokerdesigner (talk) 21:01, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

 * Tokerdesigner is under an indefinite block discussion here . Mjpresson (talk) 21:14, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Kief. 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.cannabisculture.com/v2/articles/4220.html

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 20:14, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

I heard the news today — oh, boy!

 * Well, look: I’m just an old fart who got gently, but attention-inducingly,Non-ironyprodded at an entrance to the Oakland Induction Center (where I, probably later, got misclassified) on what may have been labeled Civil Disobedience Day, as Joan, and her sister Mimi, and her east-Mediterranean lawyer, got arrested for sitting obstructively in an entrance. I also smoked me some weed, and had a stunning hash experience at the uh, unilateral impulse of a lower-paid colleague of the opposite gender (who I guess then decided I was strangely enuf wrapped to rule out bedding me — decidedly a good head). And never mind the advice the young Andy Grove gave me. Any-who, I comfortably neglected correcting more than grammar (and mebbe a few terminological liberties). Listen to Kung-fu Tze: “The beginning of wisdom is calling things by [more clarifying and informative] names, SO GET A LIFE.” (Ya could look it up, prolly in WP.) --2601:199:C201:FD70:BC94:F640:155B:3A5F (talk),
 * --ex-user:Jerzy,
 * --ex-user:JerzyA, maybe soon less hardware-limited, and back as a non-ip-editor, but fer now,
 * --21:46, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

lmao that mousepad
Or whatever it is in the pic of/with the coffee grinder Red dwarf (talk) 10:54, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:Kief


text:
Columbia House

Columbia House was an umbrella brand for Columbia Records' mail-order music clubs, the primary iteration of which was the Columbia Record Club, established in 1955. The Columbia House brand was introduced in the early 1970s by Columbia Records (a division of CBS, Inc.), and had a significant market presence in the 1970s, 1980s and early 1990s.

In 2005, longtime competitor BMG Direct Marketing, Inc. (formerly the RCA Music Service or RCA Victor Record Club) purchased Columbia House and consolidated operations. In 2008, the company (as well as book club operator Bookspan) was acquired by private investment group Najafi Companies, and its name was changed to Direct Brands, Inc.

Although Direct Brands shut down music mail-order operations in mid-2009, it continued to use the Columbia House brand to market videos in the U.S. and Canada, selling DVDs and Blu-rays via the controversial practice of negative option billing. DB Media's Canadian assets ceased operating on December 10, 2010, and all staff were dismissed, while U.S. operations continued as usual. In December 2012, the company was sold to Pride Tree Holdings, Inc. In 2013, the company changed its name to Filmed Entertainment Inc. The sale of the DVD division at bankruptcy auction was announced August 10, 2015.

Rapid growth
Columbia Record Club was formed in 1955 by CBS/Columbia Records as an experiment to market music directly by mail, spurring sales to rural consumers and heading off competition from mail-order companies from outside the record industry. New members to the club were enticed with a free record just for joining. To appease brick-and-mortar retailers, titles in the club's catalog were not made available until six months after retail release (later reduced to three months), and retailers that helped recruit members got a 20% commission. By the end of that year, the club had 125,175 members who had purchased 700,000 records ($1.174 million net). The operation grew so quickly that, in 1956, it was moved from New York City to a new home base: a distribution center in Terre Haute, Indiana, a railway-accessible city where Columbia had recently opened a record pressing facility. Within a year, the club had 687,652 members and had sold 7 million records ($14.888 million net) and, by 1963, it commanded 10% of the recorded music retail market.

Licensing
In the late 1950s, both RCA Victor and Capitol Records also launched record clubs. Initially, the three record clubs sold only their own labels' releases. For example, Columbia recordings were not available from the RCA Victor Record Club, and RCA recordings were unavailable through the Columbia Record Club.

In 1958, facing the loss of members who wanted a wider variety of records, the Columbia Record Club began manufacturing and marketing records for some smaller competing labels, including Verve, Mercury, Warner Bros., Kapp, Vanguard, United Artists, and Liberty. The RCA Victor and Capitol record clubs continued to offer only their own labels' products. Licensors were guaranteed a minimum number of sales, but were held to exclusive, restrictive contracts, which led to price-fixing allegations against the club in 1962, followed by 7 years of mostly ineffective litigation. The licensing program continued and expanded in the 1960s as the music industry grew and changed.

New formats and the rise of the Columbia House brand
The Columbia Record Club began marketing stereo records and equipment in 1959, reel-to-reel recordings (via the Columbia Reel-To-Reel Club) in 1960, 8-track cartridges (via the Columbia Cartridge Club) in 1966, and cassettes (via the Columbia Cassette Club) in 1969.

The Columbia Record Club was also notable in continuing to issue product in formats no longer available on the commercial market. After the major record labels discontinued the reel-to-reel tape format in the mid 1970s, Columbia still continued to offer select new titles available on reel tape up until 1984. The 8-track tape had mostly disappeared by 1982, yet Columbia continued to release new titles in the format until 1988 and finally after the major record labels abandoned the vinyl LP format in 1989, Columbia issued select new titles on vinyl until 1992. In all three cases, the new releases on the deleted formats were usually limited to the new Selection of the Month title (although the country music Selection of the Month had never been available on reel tape unless the album had possible crossover appeal to the Pop/Rock or Easy Listening club members).

By the early 1970s, "Columbia House" had become an overarching brand for the various divisions, led by the Columbia Record Club, later renamed the Columbia Record & Tape Club. By 1975, membership was over 3 million.

A small CRC was in a conspicuous spot on the media and the cover, which showed that Columbia House was the manufacturer.

In 1982, the CBS Video Club, which had formed the previous year as the CBS Video Library, became part of the Columbia House family. Also, during that same time period, Columbia House and The Cannon Group founded the UK-exclusive mail-order VHS distribution service Videolog. Sony acquired the CBS Records Group, including Columbia House, in 1988, then at 6 million members. In 1987, BMG had acquired RCA Records and changed the name of Columbia House's only surviving rival, RCA Music Service (formerly RCA Victor Record Club), to BMG Music Service.

In 1991, the CBS Records Group was renamed as Sony Music Entertainment and Sony sold half of Columbia House to Time Warner, which contributed Time-Life's video and music clubs to the joint venture. Membership was over 10 million at the end of that year. The influence of Columbia House and other music clubs reached its peak in 1994 accounting for 15.1 percent of all CD sales. In 1996, club membership was at 16 million. That year, the Columbia House website was launched.

Meanwhile, a parallel club, the Columbia Record Club of Canada, was operated by the Canadian branch of Columbia Records from the late 1950s until membership and financial problems led to its apparent demise in 1977. It was relaunched in 1979 as the Canadian Music Club, attracting 100,000 members by the end of that year.

Market decline
In mid-1999, a merger was announced between Columbia House and struggling online retailer CDNow, an independent, publicly owned company that had funding and other partnerships with Columbia House and its owners Sony and Time-Warner. The merger was abandoned in early 2000, with Columbia House's poor finances and stiff competition from online giant Amazon.com cited as factors. Within months, CDNow was purchased by Bertelsmann, which partially merged it with BMG Direct into a venture called BeMusic. CDNow was taken over and merged into Amazon the following year. By 2001, music clubs accounted for less than eight percent of all CD sales, coinciding with the ascent of Internet shops and retail outlets such as Amazon and Wal-Mart, which offered music at similar discounts without subscriptions.

Security breach
In 2001, a security breach in the Columbia House website exposed thousands of customer names, addresses and portions of credit card numbers, leaving private information about customers vulnerable to exploitation. The issue involved a particular section of the website, which could easily be accessed by deleting a portion of the website address in the address bar, discovered by customer Mark Alway. Upon the discovery of the breach, he emailed the Columbia House staff who were quick to respond to the problem. This event gave rise to concerns over the website's capability of keeping private information secure from hackers or devastating scams. Although no information was reportedly obtained from the temporary breach according to Columbia House, industry professionals were quick to point out that the simple error was the consequence of negligent handling of customer information.

Consolidation and downsizing
In 2002, Sony and AOL Time Warner sold 85% of Columbia House to The Blackstone Group L.P., a New York-based investment firm. The next year, the possibility of a merger of Columbia House and Blockbuster Inc. was reported in the Wall Street Journal, Associated Press reports, and trade publications. Although the owners were said to be in talks, the merger never materialized.

In 2005, longtime competitor BMG Direct Marketing, Inc., then the current owners of BMG Music Service, acquired Columbia House, renamed the merged company BMG Columbia House, Inc., and consolidated operations under the BMG Music Service name.

In 2008, the company, including its Canadian branch, was acquired from BMG by investment firm JMCK Corp., a Najafi Group company based in Phoenix, Arizona, and the name was changed to Direct Brands, Inc. Direct Brands consolidated the remaining facilities, and shut down music mail-order operations on June 30, 2009. However, Direct Brands continued to operate a DVD and Blu-ray Disc club under the Columbia House brand in both the U.S. and Canada. The Columbia House name is still owned by Sony Music Entertainment, and is used under license.

In December 2010, the Canadian branch went into bankruptcy, and its websites began redirecting visitors to a letter of explanation from the companies' trustees in bankruptcy.

Bankruptcy
The parent of the Columbia House music and DVD clubs announced on August 10, 2015, that it plans to sell its Columbia House DVD Club business, which sells recorded movies and TV series directly to consumers, through a bankruptcy auction.

Return to music sales
In December 2015, Columbia House's owner, John Lippman, announced his intention to begin a vinyl subscription service that will allow subscribers the ability to choose which records and genres of music they receive.

Current ownership
While Sony Music still owns the Columbia House trademark, Edge Line Ventures LLC is the current licensee of the Columbia House name.

Business practices
Since Columbia House's beginnings, following the sale of Columbia House to BMG, and continuing after the sale to Direct Brands, Columbia House has attracted criticism for its business practices, some of which are outlined here:

Membership
During the first three decades of Columbia House, it had a most unique marketing strategy: Give the customer several albums for free (although most of its early marketing campaigns required the customer to tape a penny to the enclosed postcard/order form) with the promise that they would purchase a set number of records or tapes at full club prices plus shipping.

There were dozens of small sheets of stamps that were enclosed in the mailer; these stamps had pictures of the actual album cover of the records offered by Columbia House. The customer would tear the stamp off the sheet, moisten the stamp and affix them onto the order card.

These Columbia House envelopes would arrive as junk mail to what seemed was everyone's home on a regular basis. One recipient might get one type of offer, but a neighbor might receive a more lucrative offer. Many times, it was the teenagers of the house who intercepted this mail. They were easily suckered in with the idea of getting the albums they wanted all at once and all they had to do was to buy three or four albums within the next two or three years. There were many underage customers who legally could not be bound to this agreement; Columbia House knew these were unenforceable, but they apparently did not care (though eventually this policy did change). Columbia House (and other music clubs) made it extremely easy to defraud them. There were countless cases of customers joining the music club, receiving free albums and never ordering more albums at full price as agreed. Customers would join the club several times under different names with no intention of paying - in extreme cases receiving recordings with a retail value worth hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Negative option billing practice
Columbia House practiced negative option billing, a form of commercial distribution in which services are automatically supplied to the consumers until a specific cancellation order is issued. The practice has drawn many complaints from consumers. The Federal Trade Commission has published information to protect customers against this practice, specifically referencing a $0.49/video offering.

Other questionable business practices
In specified circumstances, "memberships" are available, whereby the customer is not required to respond to Director Selection mailings unless he or she wants to buy the movie. When such memberships expire, the old rules return where a response is required in time to prevent shipping of full price movies without customer input. Customers are not reminded when those rules change. The customer also has access to a large variety of other movies, which are advertised by mail and online towards the customer. Only full price purchases deplete that minimum purchase obligation. Purchases are not cumulative, meaning that two movies bought at ten dollars each do not deplete the minimum list price movie purchases by one movie. If the minimum number of movies has not been purchased by the end of the term, the monetary worth of those movies is charged to the customers' accounts. If any purchases have been made using Columbia House's point of sale device, either credit cards or debit cards linked to credit card accounts, then those accounts are automatically debited. The company will either mail or email a reminder notice prior to the commitment expiring, giving the customer the opportunity to purchase the required purchase obligation before they are charged for any commitment or contract charges. Likewise, backordered movies are automatically debited to those accounts when they become available, without further notification to the customers. Failure to clear such purchases result in collections efforts by Columbia House against the customers.

Alleged fraudulent sale of debt
In December 2008, BMG Music Service (now yourmusic.com) supposedly sold an unknown number of fraudulent debt claims to a collection agency, National Credit Solutions. Supposed delinquents were not made known of their debt and most had not made purchases with the company for at least five years. Victims of the sale of false debt claims were not made known of either their debt or the account opened with National Credit Solutions. Most victims learned of the collections agency account when they were denied for a loan, had credit cards canceled, or checked their credit reports.

Class action suit
On August 4, 2011, a nationwide class action suit was filed against Columbia House (Direct Brands Inc.) seeking monetary damages and an injunction stopping Direct Brands Inc. alleged business practices of unauthorized credit card charges, inability to cancel, unwanted products being mailed to homes and several other alleged issues.

"Fun Cash" and "Dividend Dollars" and "Bonus Points"
Columbia House offered a point system, where movies bought resulted in "points" or "Fun Cash" ("Dividend Dollars" was the term used when the movies came in VHS format, which is no longer the case). There were a number of restrictions to the use of Fun Cash, which generally made regular re-enrollment a lower cost and more tangible option for those interested in savings.

Other clubs
Columbia House has made forays into other media besides music and movies. For a few years, Columbia House offered a CD-ROM club, allowing customers to buy computer games. It is now allowing members to buy video games from its site, but thus far has not offered a specific club for this. One can also enter into agreements concerning the regular purchase of "box sets", which are compilations of popular TV series. One agreement, allows customers access to any of Columbia House's products. Everything can be sourced via the company website.

Better Business Bureau rating
As of 2010, this business had an unsatisfactory rating with the BBB because of a failure to respond to complaints. The company also has an unsatisfactory record because of a pattern of complaints. Specifically, complainants allege receiving merchandise and/or bills for merchandise from BMG/Columbia House for products they did not order. Complainants further allege that they did not join BMG/Columbia House and do not know how the company obtained their information and that the company's phone line and website do not provide live customer service representatives to help resolve these problems.

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

title: Columbia House


text:
Talk:Arguments for the existence of God/Combined article draft

This content is now at Existence of God.

Many arguments about the existence of God have been proposed over time. This article lists some of the more common ones. In philosophical terminology this article introduces schools of thought on the epistemology of the ontology of God.

What is God? (Definition of God's existence)

 * See main articles: Definition, God, Ontology

In this context, the term "God" has typically been used to mean the monotheistic concept of a singular Supreme Being. The common definition of God assumes some combination of qualities such as omnipotence, omniscience and benevolence. Typically, proofs will define God as one such quality, show something must exist with that quality, assert therefore "God" exists, then imbue that God with all manner of qualities not neccesitated by the definition by which he was proved. The exact definition must be followed carefully in any such argument so that what is declared as proven to exist at the end of the proof is the same thing the proof starts with in its definition of what it is to be proven that exists. Further if by one argument something with quality A exists, and by another argument something with the quality B exists, it is not yet proved that anything with both qualities exists.

This definition is not the only possible definition of "god." Many polytheistic religions have given the name "god" to several beings, all of whose existence is posited by these faiths. Reported mythologies affirm that these gods have various agendas, can trick one another, and sometimes oppose each other, all attributes that would appear to contradict omnipotence, omniscience, or benevolence. Still, all of them count as Gods in ordinary language.

In terms of the philosophy of language, one Wittgensteinian approach to the problem would be to extract a working definition of "God" from the various literatures and traditions that speak of Gods and their activities. How do people use the word "God?" What do they mean when they speak of "Gods?" In order to assess the validity of any attempted argument for the existence of a God, we must first satisfy ourselves of what would fulfil those criteria.

The problem of the supernatural
One problem immediately posed by the question of the existence of a God is that human traditional beliefs usually grant God various supernatural powers, including the power to work miracles. Gods can supernaturally conceal themselves and reveal themselves for their own purposes, as for example in the tale of Baucis and Philemon.

The supernatural abilities of God are often believed to rule out any attempt to use empirical methods to investigate God's existence. In Karl Popper's philosophy of science, the existence of a supernatural God is a non-falsifiable hypothesis, not susceptible to scientific investigation. By contrast, adherents of the intelligent design hypothesis believe that empirical or mathematical evidence that shows the existence of an intelligent creator does in fact exist, and make the hypothesis of a God's existence more likely.

Logical positivists, such as Rudolph Carnap and A. J. Ayer view any talk of gods as literally nonsense. For the logical positivists and adherents of similar schools of thought, statements about religious or other transcendent experiences could not have a truth value, and were deemed to be without meaning.

Confusing talk about talk with talk about existence
Semantics is distinguished from ontology (knowledge of existence) in being about the use of a word more than the nature of the entity referenced by the word. This is reflected in the argument, "That's only semantics" when someone tries to draw conclusions about what is true about the world based on what is true about a word.

How do we know?

 * See main article: Epistemology

One can not be said to "know" something just because one believes it. Knowledge is distinguished from belief by justification.

Positions on the Existence of God and the Possibility of Proof
Postions on the existence of God can be roughly divided into two camps: Theist and Atheist. Both of these camps can be further divided into two groups each, based on the belief of whether or not their position can be conclusively proven.

God exists, and this can be proven
The Catechism of the Catholic Church, following the Thomist tradition of St. Thomas Aquinas and the dogmatic definition of the First Vatican Council, affirms that it is a doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church that God's existence can in fact be rationally demonstrated. Some other Christians in different denominations hold similar views. On this view, a distinction is to be drawn between (1) doctrines that belong essentially to faith and cannot be proved, such as the doctrine of the Trinity or the Incarnation, and (2) doctrines that can be accepted by faith but can also be known by reason. The existence of God is said to be one of the latter. As a theological defense of this view, one might cite Paul's claim that pagans were without excuse because "since the creation of the world [God's] invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made" (Rom. 1:20).

God exists, but this can't be proven
Others have suggested that the several logical and philosophical arguments for the existence of God miss the point. The word god has a meaning in human culture and history that does not correspond to the beings whose necessity is proven by such arguments, assuming they are valid proofs. The real question is not whether a "most perfect being" or an "uncaused first cause" exist; the real question is whether Yahweh or Vishnu or Zeus, or some other deity of attested human religion, exists, and if so which deity. The proofs do not resolve that issue. Blaise Pascal suggested this objection in his Pensées when he wrote "The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob — not the god of the philosophers!"

Some Christians note that the Christian faith teaches salvation is by faith, and that faith is reliance upon the faithfulness of God, which has little to do with the believer's ability to comprehend that in which he trusts. In other words, if Christian theology is true, then God's existence can never be demonstrated, either by empirical means or by philosophical argument. The most extreme example of this position is called fideism, which holds that faith is simply the will to believe, and argues that if God's existence were rationally demonstrable, faith in His existence would become superfluous. In The Justification of Knowledge, the Calvinist theologian Robert S. Reymond argues that believers should not attempt to prove the existence of God. Since he believes all such proofs are fundamentally unsound, believers should not place their confidence in them, much less resort to them in discussions with non-believers; rather, they should accept the content of revelation by faith. Reymond's position is similar to that of presuppositional apologetics, which holds that faith-based world views and non-faith-based world views are both essentially circular belief systems that have no common grounds to debate such a proposition.

An intermediate position is that of Alvin Plantinga who holds that belief in the existence of God can be rational and indeed a species of knowledge, even though the existence of God cannot be demonstrated. After all, there are kinds of knowledge that are rational but do not proceed through demonstration: sensory knowledge, for instance.

Pascal's Wager holds that, whether or not God's existence can be proved, belief in God is the most prudentially rational choice, because one has everything to gain if God exists, and nothing to lose if he does not.

God does not exist, and this can be proven
Strong atheism or positive atheism is the philosophical position that God or gods do not exist. It is contrasted with weak atheism, which is the lack or absence of belief in God or gods, without the claim that God or gods do not exist. The strong atheist positively asserts, at least, that no God or gods exist, and may go further and claim that the existence of some or all gods is logically impossible. For example, strong atheists commonly claim that the combination of attributes which the Christian God is asserted to have (e.g., omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence, transcendence, omnibenevolence, etc) is logically contradictory, incomprehensible, or absurd, and therefore that the existence of the Christian God is a priori impossible.

God has not been proven to exist
Weak atheism argues that merely pointing out the flaws or lack of soundness in all arguments for the existence of God is sufficient to show that a God's existence is less probable than his nonexistence; by Occam's Razor (principle of parsimony), the burden of proof lies on the advocate of that alternative which is less probable. By this reasoning, an atheist who is able to refute any argument for the existence of God encountered is justified in taking an atheist view; atheism is thus the "default" position, though some argue that it is more proper to consider agnosticism as the default. This objection is often stated in terms that relate it to the burden of proof; it is incumbent upon advocates of a God's existence to establish that fact, and they have not done so.

Arguments for the existence of God
These arguments can be classified under two headings. First are the strictly logical or metaphysical arguments; these arguments seek to prove that the existence of a being with at least one attribute that only God could have is logically necessary.

A dispute arose as to whether there are a number of proofs of the existence of God or whether all are not merely parts of one and the same proof (cf. Dr. C. Braig, Gottesbeweis oder Gottesbeweise?, Stuttgart, 1889). While all such proofs would end in the same way, by asserting the existence of God, they do not all start at the same place. St. Thomas calls them aptly (Summ. theol., I, Q. ii, a.3) Viæ; roads to the apprehension of God which all open on the same highway.

Metaphysical arguments
Arguments include:

 * The Cosmological argument, which argues that God must have been around at the start of things in order to be the "first cause".
 * The Mathematical argument defines God as the Absolute Infinite, a mathematical concept.
 * The Ontological argument, based on arguments about the "being greater than which nothing can be conceived".
 * The Pantheistic argument defines God as All; it is similar to panentheism and cosmology.

Empirical arguments
Other arguments avail themselves of data beyond definitions and axioms. Some of these arguments require only that one assume that a non-random universe able to support life exists. Others are more strongly tied to the testimony of certain witnesses or the propositions of a specific revealed religion. These arguments include:

 * The Teleological argument, which argues that since the universe's order and complexity shows signs of purpose (telos), it must have been designed by an intelligent designer, i.e. God.
 * The Anthropic argument focuses on basic facts, such as our existence, to prove God.
 * Witness argument gives credibility to personal witnesses, contemporary and throughout the ages.
 * The religious or Christological argument is specific to religions such as Christianity, and asserts that for example Jesus' life as written in the New Testament establishes his credibility, so we can believe in the truth of his statements about God.
 * The Majority argument: people in all times and in different places have believed in God, so it is unlikely that he does not exist.
 * The Moral argument argues that morality cannot exist without God.
 * The Transcendental argument, which argues that logic, science, ethics, and other things we take seriously do not make sense if there is no God. Therefore, arguments against the existence of God must ultimately refute themselves if pressed with rigorous consistency.

Inductive arguments for belief in God

 * Another class of philosophers asserts that the proofs for the existence of God present a fairly large probability but no absolute certainty. A number of obscure points, they say, always remain. In order to overcome these difficulties there is necessary either an act of the will, a religious experience, or the discernment of the misery of the world without God, so that finally the heart makes the decision. This view is maintained, among others, by the English statesman Arthur Balfour in his book The Foundations of Belief (1895). The opinions set forth in this work were adopted in France by Brunetiére, the editor of the Revue des deux Mondes. Many orthodox Protestants express themselves in the same manner, as, for instance, Dr. E. Dennert, President of the Kepler Society, in his work Ist Gott tot? (Stuttgart, 1908).

Arguments for belief in God grounded in subjective experience

 * The Scotch School led by Thomas Reid taught that the fact of the existence of God is accepted by us without knowledge of reasons but simply by a natural impulse. That God exists, this school said, is one of the chief metaphysical principles that we accept not because they are evident in themselves or because they can be proved, but because common sense obliges us to accept them.
 * The Argument from a Proper Basis argues that belief in God is "properly basic"--that is, similar to statements such as "I see a chair" or "I feel pain." Such beliefs are non-falsifiable and, thus, neither able to be proved nor disproved; they concern perceptual beliefs or indisputable mental states.
 * In Germany, the School of Friedrich Heinrich Jacobi taught that our reason is able to perceive the suprasensible. Jacobi distinguished three faculties: sense, reason, and understanding. Just as sense has immediate perception of the material so has reason immediate perception of the immaterial, while the understanding brings these perceptions to our consciousness and unites them to one another (Stöckl, Geschichte der neueren Philosophie, II, 82 sqq.). God's existence, then, cannot be proved--Jacobi, like Kant, rejected the absolute value of the principle of causality--it must be felt by the mind.
 * In his Emile, Jean-Jacques Rousseau asserted that when our understanding ponders over the existence of God it encounters nothing but contradictions; the impulses of our hearts, however, are of more value than the understanding, and these proclaim clearly to us the truths of natural religion, namely, the existence of God and the immortality of the soul.
 * The same theory was advocated in Germany by Friedrich Schleiermacher (d. 1834), who assumed an inner religious sense by means of which we feel religious truths. According to Schleiermacher, religion consists solely in this inner perception, and dogmatic doctrines are unessential (Stöckl, loc. cit., 199 sqq.).
 * Many modern Protestant theologians follow in Schleiermacher's footsteps, and teach that the existence of God cannot be demonstrated; certainty as to this truth is only furnished us by inner experience, feeling, and perception.
 * Modernist Christianity also denies the demonstrability of the existence of God. According to them we can only know something of God by means of the vital immanence, that is, under favorable circumstances the need of the Divine dormant in our subconsciousness becomes conscious and arouses that religious feeling or experience in which God reveals himself to us. In condemnation of this view the oath against Modernism formulated by Pius X says: "Deum ... naturali rationis lumine per ea quae facta sunt, hoc est per visibilia creationis opera, tanquam causam per effectus certo cognosci adeoque demostrari etiam posse, profiteor." ("I declare that by the natural light of reason, God can be certainly known and therefore His existence demonstrated through the things that are made, i.e., through the visible works of Creation, as the cause is known through its effects.")

Arguments against the existence of God
While some theists argue that a god entirely transcends logic and that logical discourse about him is therefore meaningless, others would disagree with the assertion that a god has incompatible or incoherent properties. Each of the following arguments aims at proving that some particular conception of a god either is inherently meaningless, contradictory or contradicts known scientific and historical facts, and that therefore a god thus described cannot exist.
 * Many people who do not believe in the concept of God try to disprove him mathematically. One such proof goes as follows: Can God create a rock too big for himself to lift? If the answer is yes, then He is not perfect, and therefore not God, since He cannot lift all rocks. If the answer is no, then He is not perfect, and therefore not God due to the inability to do something.

 * The argument from inconsistent revelations contests the existence of the middle eastern, biblical deity called God as described in holy scriptures, such as the Jewish Tanakh, the Christian Bible, or the Muslim Qur'an, by identifying contradictions between different scriptures, contradictions within a single scripture, or contradictions between scripture and known facts.

 * The problem of evil (or theodicy) in general, and the logical and evidential arguments from evil in particular contest the existence of a god who is both omnipotent and omnibenevolent by arguing that such a god would not permit the existence of evil, which can easily be shown to exist.

 * The argument from nonbelief contests the existence of an omnipotent god who wants humans to believe in him by arguing that such a god would do a better job of gathering believers.

 * The argument from free will contests the existence of an omniscient god who has free will by arguing that the two properties are contradictory.

 * The argument from poor design contests the existence of an intelligent Creator God by arguing that much of nature is poorly designed.

 * The Transcendental Argument for the Non-existence of God contests the existence of an intelligent Creator God by demonstrating that such a being would make logic and morality contingent, which is incompatible with the presuppositionalist assertion that they are necessary, and contradicts the efficacy of science. A more general line of argument based on TANG, materialist apologetics, seeks to generalize this argument to all necessary features of the universe and all god-concepts.

 * The atheist-existentialist argument for the non-existence of God, if God is supposed to be a perfect sentient being: As presented by Jean-Paul Sartre in Being and Nothingness, it states that since existence precedes essence, it follows from the meaning of the term sentient that a sentient being cannot be complete or perfect. Sartre's phrasing is that God would be a pour-soi [a being-for-itself; a consciousness] who is also an en-soi [a being-in-itself; a thing]: which is a contradiction in terms. The argument is echoed thus in Salman Rushdie's novel Grimus: "That which is complete is also dead."

 * Theological noncognitivism, as used in the literature, usually seeks to disprove the god-concept by showing that it is meaningless in some way.

 * The "chicken or the egg" argument states that if the Universe had to be created by God because it must have a creator, then God, in turn would have had to be created by some other God, and so on.

 * The "no motivation" argument states that if god is omnipotent, then he would not be motivated to act in any way, specifically creating the universe, since God would have anything God wanted in infinite amounts and would have no desires since there is no reason for God to have any. Since the universe exists, there is a contradiction and an omnipotent God cannot exist.


text:
User:Yfujita

Yumiko Fujita, not to be mistaken with the Japanese actressFujita Yumiko, is a Communication undergraduate student at the University of Hawai'i at Mānoa in Honolulu, HI.

Yumiko Fujita was born in 1978 at the University of California San Francisco Children's Hospital to Yuriko Fujita and Yoshiharu Fujita and to older brother, Jun Fujita, 5 1/2 years her senior. Her name in kanji is a combination of her mother and father's names.

For fourteen years, she lived in the Japantown area of San Francisco, a block away from her mother's store. Most of her childhood activities took place in the neighboring area as her preschool and elementary after-school programs were located within a few blocks from her home.

She attended Clarendon Alternative Elementary School where she was fortunate enough to be enrolled in the Japanese Bilingual Bicultural Program which taught its curriculum primarily in English but was supplemented in learning Japanese language as well as culture.

For middle school, she attended Herbert Hoover Middle school where for three years, she played flute in the school band as well as took part in putting together the school yearbook.

Her first year of high school was spent at the prestigious Lowell High School, but after her mother's re-marriage, moved to San Mateo High School.

After graduating from high school, Yumiko attended first San Francisco State University then the College of San Mateo for her general education credits while working at a staffing agency for 3 years. Not being able to decide on a major at the time, she took a break from school and decide to move to Hawai'i for a change of scenery.

Once in Hawai'i, she continued her career in the staffing industry and worked for another agency, ALTRES, for another 3 years. By that time, she was again, in need of another change and decided to go back to school.

She has been enrolled in the University of Hawai'i since the Spring of 2003 and will be graduating in the Fall of 2005.

Yumiko can be contacted at yumiko.fujita@gmail.com

title: User:Yfujita


text:
Talk:Mirandese language

Connection with Asturian
The connection with Asturian seems to be a tender subject. The two entries might be compared, with mutual advantage. --Wetman 06:12, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
 * well. I saw this and it has comparisons with Asturian.  I did a very small paragraph with the differences (I dont have much time now). You can add more info. That article/site is in Mirandese. -Pedro 02:23, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This just plain does not make sense: The main differences between Mirandese in Portugal and Asturian in Spain are the dominant languages in each region,. I would correct it, but I can't work out what it is supposed to mean. --Taejo 09:24, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes it doesnt make sence. I meant: these two languages are influenced by Portuguese (Mirandese) and Spanish (Asturian). And this fact marks a big difference as Spanish and Portuguese are two 'grown up' languages, and "give" a lot of lexicon to the smaller languages. -Pedro 11:30, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

About "Garrafa"
I'm an Asturian speaker (from Spain) and we use the word "garrafa". It isn't a good example.

And i am not asturian speaker (i am from aragon) and i use garrafa too...actually none of those words were good examples as all of them are used both in spanish and portuguese

I have removed said examples because they are obviously inaccurate. I've heard both carro and coche in Spanish, and the word for "computer" in Spanish is computadora. Grandmasterka 08:33, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

The usual term used in Spain for "computer" is "ordenador", not "computadora"; used in Latin America --Dantadd 14:39, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

'Mirandese remains very conservative'
"Another difference is that Mirandese remains very conservative, while Asturian has changed. " It should be explained in what sense Mirandese is conservative with respect to Asturian... phonology?... lexicon?... grammar?... FilipeS 11:25, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

The whole article needs a rewrite. I think I even remember reading a better article here a few months (years?) ago (no offense to people who worked in it ever since). The sentence, as some other ones, makes indeed no sense. Both Mirandese and Asturian (meaning the Astur-Leonese dialects spoken in the Asturias Autonomy) surely changed a lot, and I doubt anyone has enough knowledge (of both the dialects and older accounts of Leonese) at this point to make such a statement. I should write a new version of this article as soon as I have some time. 19 May 2006. -- Not diference is very similar to portuguese and they portuguese goverment through the Cultural Institutions and indepedent Associations wanted, being not back so cantabrian and the old region of Leon (Palencia, Valladolid, Leon, Zamora, Salamanca), is false at the last time respect the special, anecdoticall traditional historicall writing,and their relations with Portuguese, Leonese and also Galician and castilian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.155.45.166 (talk • contribs)

Dialects of Mirandese
The article currently states:

 * Three variants of the Mirandese language exist: "Border Mirandese", "Central Mirandese" and "Sendinês Mirandese". Most speakers of Mirandese also speak Portuguese; some of these speak Spanish as well.

But Lindley Cintra, in Nova Proposta de Classificação dos Dialectos Galego-Portugueses, speaks of riodonorês, guadramilês, mirandês and sendinês. This needs to be checked. FilipeS 21:53, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Lindley Cintra was admitedly far from being a specialist in Mirandese, and his few lines on this issue are dated (the work was written in the 60s). 'Riodonorês' and 'guadramilês' are two localects spoken (I'm not sure if they still are today) in two villages (Rio-de-Onor and Guadramil) in the Braganza county, at least 50km away from the Mirandese-speaking area. Those were indeed described as Astur-Leonese dialects, but not of the Mirandese branch. Following the studies develloped by the Linguistics Centre of the Univ. of Lisbon and a panel of local experts to get the 1999 law and Ortographic Convention done, Sendinês was considered to be with no doubts a Mirandese dialect, as the main differences lye in a few phonological processes observed in other villages (only never at the same time) and the historical accounts for huge lexical differences were proven unreliable. 'Raiano' is the name given to those dialects spoken in the land border ('raia seca', as opposed to that established by the Douro river), with a deeper castillian influence, namely in the vocalic system and in the lexicon. Although the text you mention wasn't written by me, there are many accounts of reliable authors dividing Mirandese in those three dialects, if you can read Portuguese (which, from your nickname, I guess you can). I tried to find one in English, but had no luck, as all the results headed to Wikipedia or text taken/modified from this article. 19 May 2005

Free text
To streamline the Portuguese language article, I am deleting the following text from it, and replacing it with a link to Mirandese:
 * In the municipalities of Miranda do Douro and Vimioso (northeast Portugal, near the border with Spain), three dialects closely related to Astur-Leonese are spoken. They are called Mirandese (proper), Raian, and Sendinese, but usually designated by the generic term Mirandese in scholarly work. In 1999, the Portuguese Parliament recognized Mirandese as a language, co-official with Portuguese in the municipalities where it is spoken. A group of linguists from the University of Lisbon has set up an orthography for Mirandese, based on the spelling of Portuguese.

Feel free to reuse it here, if you find it useful. I was based on this article, anyway. FilipeS 17:17, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Ethnic group
The mirandese people is a ethnic group different from the portuguese.
 * And where was it that you saw that stated? (Please, sign your posts)  Parutakupiu  talk 20:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The mirandese people is a national group because has his own languague and his own costumes. We don´t say that we are white and the portuguese blacks, we say that we are culturally diferents like the lethonian to the lithuanian. I don´t sign because I am not registered yet.
 * I confess I don't know much about the mirandese history and community but can the linguistical (and tradition difference be a strong parameter to define "mirandese" its own as an ethnic group? Anyway, my goal here is to ensure that the statement you added has a verifiable reference, so it can be validated. Just that. And you're more than welcome to register and edit.  Parutakupiu  talk 23:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

This is a complete and total fabrication! There are no feelings of ethnic differentiation in Miranda! I dont even think this unregistered editor should be taken seriously. Or else he is an anonimous vandal. Even if he is from Miranda do Douro, which I doubt, he is probably the only one that thinks the Mirandese are a different nationality or ethnic group. His edits are infatile and he doesn't understand that an encyclopedia is not about what the world is but about what people say (and discuss) the world is! His matter of fact statements, unsupported by any source, show he has no understanding of the social and cultural processes envolved in ethnico-political differentiation. His edits should be treated as vandalism. If he has a case for his statements he should bring it forward in the talk pages before writing such delusions on the multiple articles where he has been adding them. The Ogre 00:29, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I completely agree that his remarks should be thoroughly support by valid sources. Unfortunately, it also seems to me that he's just vandalizing - from what I saw in your talk page, The Ogre. Sad...  Parutakupiu  talk 00:34, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

The mirandese are proud of his langueague, costumes and history, different to the people of Pertual. Miranfree 14:53, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Miranfree, I see you have registered. Good. It means, I suppose, that you are serious in your purposes, and not a mere vandal. Now... regarding your opinion that the inhabitants of Miranda do Douro are a different nationality or ethnic group from the rest of the Portuguese, I have two types of comment:
 * Methodological, regarding what an encyclopedia should be. Methodologicaly, yours is not a correct approach to writing in an encyclopedia. You see, when there is no consensus, and respecting the NPOV rule of wikipedia (see: Neutral point of view), "The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being the truth, and all significant published points of view are to be presented, not just the most popular one" and this must be done "representing fairly and without bias all significant views that have been published by a reliable source". You have not done so. Furthermore, and I do know the literature and reality about national identity in Portugal (namely sociological, antropological and historical), I have no knowledge of any source presenting the Mirandese as a different ethnic group or nationality. So... you look like an isolated individual defending something nobody else says, namely the Mirandese. You just blumtly state that the Mirandese are a different nationality because they speak a different language (and what does "speak" mean? check these statistics) - this, as I shall elaborat in the next paragraph, is invalid, but, even more important given the fact that you are the only source for such a statement, is not sufficient for an encyclopedia! Imagine I decided to write in the article about God, that God exists because I believe in it (or maybe evem some more people...). Then someone would decide to blank me and write that God does not exist because he or she does not believe in it! That is why the article must present all reliably sourced points of view, stating that these people think this and those people think that. Do you understand? I reppeat, an encyclopedia is not about what the world is but about what people say (and discuss) the world is!
 * Substantive, regarding the de facto statements you present about the Mirandese. Substantively, your statements, besides unsourced, are basic (therefore rapidly refutable) and just plain wrong. Do understand me. I have nothing against the Mirandese and, personally, I don't give a dam if their are to be a different national or ethnic group or not! If that's what they whant to be - fine by me! But the fact is that I have never read that statement anywhere, there are no political movements or organizations deffending that position and I strongly believe that if you ask the Mirandese if they are Portuguese or not, they'll say they are Portuguese - they are Portuguese from Miranda, with particular cultural traits, traditions and linguistic heritage. Even the official site of the Câmara Municipal is in Portuguese, not Mirandese, the whole history section clearly states the integration of Miranda in Portuguese history, society and culture, and there is only a very small reference to the Mirandese language. Even a site as the one about Mirandese language by the Linguistics Center of the Classical Univerty of Lisbon (Sítio de I Mirandés), that clearly means to deffend the language and the cultural traditions of Miranda, never presents the Mirandese as a different ethnic or national group. Of course the Mirandese have"a language and a culture of its own", as FilipeS said, so do many other inhabitants of other regions of Portugal (if I say "Ú grade azoigou e foi átupir na manta das tanerifas" do you understand me? Well it's a phrase in the variety of the Portuguese language spoken in Madeira, albeit very archaic; in fact only in the Madeira and the Azores have ever had separatist movements, and their reasoning, mind you, was never one of cultural differentiation, but of geographical differentiation and political antipaty to the left-wing predominace in continental Portugal during the revolucionary process - do you, by any chance, know the literature about this?). That does not make them an ethnic group or a nationality (as you can see in the respective articles, these are not simple problematics...) - there are many nations that have internal ethnic and linguistic differentation, on the other hand there are different nations that share ethnic, cultural and linguitic heritage. And you even mention Race! By Endovelicus! Do you even know what you are talking about? Even if I could accept, and I can not, the implicits in your statement about Whites and Blacks (even in Talk:Portugal), that is to say, the simplist way in which you speak about such complex concepts, let me tell you that there are also nations that have internal racial differentiation and different nations that have the same racial make up!
 * Concluding... my friend, and I shall assume that you are not ill intended, the Mirandese are not a different ethnicity or nationality. And by the way, I'm not a "salazarianism", as you accused me in my talk page (what you wrote is close to bashing - see No personal attacks - and propaganda - your name, Miranfree, is already a political demand: "We speak a different language, we have our costumes, we are a different nationality. Stop to the portugueses salazarianism. Respect to the mirandese nationality."). Please stop your unfounded statements and edits. Thank you. The Ogre 03:00, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I respect your opinion but I think that when a people has his own land, his own costumes and his own langueague this people is a nationality. That´s in english, in mirandese and must be in portuguese also. Miranfree 10:41, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I won't try to refute what Miranfree has said, as this is not the right place for it, but as a Mirandese I should say there has never been a noticeable nationalist or separatist movement in Miranda nor its people feel they are part of something else other than Portugal, as proud as they might be in our specific cultural features. (I'm sorry but I don't have a Wikipedia account to sign with.) 27th March 2007

Why should this article have anything to do with spain?
I think it's pretty ridiculous, to see that flag at the top of this page, above the Portuguese flag. Why is this even related to spain? Mirandese is spoken in Portugal, Miranda do Douro is de facto and de jure part of Portugal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.147.47.220 (talk) 19:08, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree, and have removed the Spanish tag. -- Orange Mike  |  Talk  21:48, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Mirandês Amazónico
I've read a lot about mirandese and I've never heard about such a thing as Amazonic Mirandese or Mirandês Amazónico. There's even a citation needed. Is that information even true? I was astonished when I looked at it. Calafalas (talk) 06:37, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I've just removed that paragraph, it was most likely a hoax. Hús  ö  nd  12:53, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It could be an interesting possibility, I just don't find any evidence whatsoever.Calafalas (talk) 09:44, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Undoing edits of 20 July 2011 relating to relationship to Portuguese
User Benwing inserted a statement into at least two articles about Astur-Leonese languages (this one and Leonese language) falsely implying that these languages genetically descend from a Portuguese node. This contradicts the established view. The established view is elaborated in various Wikipedia articles on Astur-Leonese languages: western Romance is a dialect continuum with many members, and most of the local vernaculars are not "basilects" of Spanish, Portuguese, or French. Within Iberian Romance, Leonese, Asturias, and Aragonese are not variants of Spanish, but rather Spanish is of comparable rank to them. Again, this has all been articulated in other Wikipedia articles. More particularly, Leonese is not a variety of Portuguese any more than of Spanish. Therefore, user Benwing is in error to choose wording, "here are historical traits which link (Mirandese, Leonese) to Portuguese rather than to Spanish". The key insight is that in western Romance phonology, at least in consonants, Castilian is highly divergent from all the others. The inventory and distribution of consonants in Leonese resemble the Portuguese more than the nearly all the western Romance dialects from Belgium to Lisbon resemble one another closely in these regards. Dale Chock (talk) 00:51, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

dates in parliament

 * The Portuguese Parliament granted it co-official recognition for local matters on 17 September 1998 with the law 7/99 of 29 January 1999.

Was this done in Parliament in September with effect in January, or what? —Tamfang (talk) 03:24, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mirandese language. 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 tag to http://mirandes.no.sapo.pt/LMRNconvencao.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060321082115/http://www.romaniaminor.net/ianua/Ianua02/02Ianua04.pdf to http://www.romaniaminor.net/ianua/Ianua02/02Ianua04.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) 12:55, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mirandese language. 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/20051124073816/http://www.jornalnordeste.com/index.asp?idEdicao=76&id=2353&idSeccao=646&Action=noticia to http://www.jornalnordeste.com/index.asp?idEdicao=76&id=2353&idSeccao=646&Action=noticia

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) 21:07, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

title: Talk:Mirandese language