text:
Β-Hydroxy β-methylbutyric acid

β-Hydroxy β-methylbutyric acid (HMB), otherwise known as its conjugate base, β-hydroxy β-methylbutyrate, is a naturally produced substance in humans that is used as a dietary supplement and as an ingredient in certain medical foods that are intended to promote wound healing and provide nutritional support for people with muscle wasting due to cancer or HIV/AIDS. In healthy adults, supplementation with HMB has been shown to increase exercise-induced gains in muscle size, muscle strength, and lean body mass, reduce skeletal muscle damage from exercise, improve aerobic exercise performance, and expedite recovery from exercise. Medical reviews and meta-analyses indicate that HMB supplementation also helps to preserve or increase lean body mass and muscle strength in individuals experiencing age-related muscle loss. HMB produces these effects in part by stimulating the production of proteins and inhibiting the breakdown of proteins in muscle tissue. No adverse effects from long-term use as a dietary supplement in adults have been found.

HMB is sold as a dietary supplement at a cost of about US$30–50 per month when taking 3 grams per day. HMB is also contained in several nutritional products, including certain formulations of Ensure and Juven. HMB is also present in insignificant quantities in certain foods, such as alfalfa, asparagus, avocados, cauliflower, grapefruit, and catfish.

The effects of HMB on human skeletal muscle were first discovered by Steven L. Nissen at Iowa State University in the mid-1990s. HMB has not been banned by the National Collegiate Athletic Association, World Anti-Doping Agency, or any other prominent national or international athletic organization. In 2006, only about 2% of college student athletes in the United States used HMB as a dietary supplement. As of 2017, HMB has found widespread use as an ergogenic supplement among young athletes.

Available forms
HMB is sold as an over-the-counter dietary supplement in the free acid form, β-hydroxy β-methylbutyric acid (HMB-FA), and as a monohydrated calcium salt of the conjugate base, calcium β-hydroxy β-methylbutyrate monohydrate (HMB-Ca, CaHMB). Since only a small fraction of HMB's metabolic precursor, -leucine, is metabolized into HMB, pharmacologically active concentrations of the compound in blood plasma and muscle can only be achieved by supplementing HMB directly. A healthy adult produces approximately 0.3 grams per day, while supplemental HMB is usually taken in doses of 3–6 grams per day. HMB is sold at a cost of about US$30–50 per month when taken in doses of 3 grams per day. HMB is also contained in several nutritional products and medical foods marketed by Abbott Laboratories (e.g., certain formulations of Ensure and Juven), and is present in insignificant quantities in certain foods, such as alfalfa, asparagus, avocados, cauliflower, grapefruit, and catfish.

Medical
Supplemental HMB has been used in clinical trials as a treatment for preserving lean body mass in muscle wasting conditions, particularly sarcopenia, and has been studied in clinical trials as an adjunct therapy in conjunction with resistance exercise. Based upon two medical reviews and a meta-analysis of seven randomized controlled trials, HMB supplementation can preserve or increase lean muscle mass and muscle strength in sarcopenic older adults. HMB does not appear to significantly affect fat mass in older adults. Preliminary clinical evidence suggests that HMB supplementation may also prevent muscle atrophy during bed rest. A growing body of evidence supports the efficacy of HMB in nutritional support for reducing, or even reversing, the loss of muscle mass, muscle function, and muscle strength that occurs in hypercatabolic disease states such as cancer cachexia;  consequently, the authors of two 2016 reviews of the clinical evidence recommended that the prevention and treatment of sarcopenia and muscle wasting in general include supplementation with HMB, regular resistance exercise, and consumption of a high-protein diet.

Clinical trials that used HMB for the treatment of muscle wasting have involved the administration of 3 grams of HMB per day under different dosing regimens. According to one review, an optimal dosing regimen is to administer it in one 1 gram dose, three times a day, since this ensures elevated plasma concentrations of HMB throughout the day; however, the best dosing regimen for muscle wasting conditions is still being investigated.

Some branded products that contain HMB (i.e., certain formulations of Ensure and Juven) are medical foods that are intended to be used to provide nutritional support under the care of a doctor in individuals with muscle wasting due to HIV/AIDS or cancer, to promote wound healing following surgery or injury, or when otherwise recommended by a medical professional. Juven, a nutrition product which contains 3 grams of HMB-Ca, 14 grams of -arginine, and 14 grams of -glutamine per two servings, has been shown to improve lean body mass during clinical trials in individuals with AIDS and cancer, but not rheumatoid cachexia. Further research involving the treatment of cancer cachexia with Juven over a period of several months is required to adequately determine treatment efficacy.

Enhancing performance
With an appropriate exercise program, dietary supplementation with 3 grams of HMB per day has been shown to increase exercise-induced gains in muscle size, muscle strength and power, and lean body mass, reduce exercise-induced skeletal muscle damage, and expedite recovery from high-intensity exercise. Based upon limited clinical research, HMB supplementation may also improve aerobic exercise performance and increase gains in aerobic fitness when combined with high-intensity interval training. These effects of HMB are more pronounced in untrained individuals and athletes who perform high intensity resistance or aerobic exercise. In resistance-trained populations, the effects of HMB on muscle strength and lean body mass are limited. HMB affects muscle size, strength, mass, power, and recovery in part by stimulating myofibrillar muscle protein synthesis and inhibiting muscle protein breakdown through various mechanisms, including the activation of mechanistic target of rapamycin complex 1 (mTORC1) and inhibition of proteasome-mediated proteolysis in skeletal muscles.

The efficacy of HMB supplementation for reducing skeletal muscle damage from prolonged or high-intensity exercise is affected by the time that it is used relative to exercise. The greatest reduction in skeletal muscle damage from a single bout of exercise has been shown to occur when HMB-Ca is ingested 1–2 hours prior to exercise or HMB-FA is ingested 30–60 minutes prior to exercise.

In 2006, only about 2% of college student athletes in the United States used HMB as a dietary supplement. As of 2017, HMB has found widespread use as an ergogenic supplement among athletes. HMB has not been banned by the National Collegiate Athletic Association, World Anti-Doping Agency, or any other prominent national or international athletic organization.

Side effects
The safety profile of HMB in adult humans is based upon evidence from clinical trials in humans and animal studies. In humans, no adverse effects in young adults or older adults have been reported when HMB is taken in doses of 3 grams per day for up to a year. Studies on young adults taking 6 grams of HMB per day for up to 2 months have also reported no adverse effects. Studies with supplemental HMB on young, growing rats and livestock have reported no adverse effects based upon clinical chemistry or observable characteristics; for humans younger than 18, there is limited data on the safety of supplemental HMB. The human equivalent dose of HMB for the no-observed-adverse-effect level (NOAEL) that was identified in a rat model is approximately 0.4 g/kg of body weight per day.

Two animal studies have examined the effects of HMB supplementation in pregnant pigs on the offspring and reported no adverse effects on the fetus. No clinical testing with supplemental HMB has been conducted on pregnant women, and pregnant and lactating women are advised not to take HMB by Metabolic Technologies, Inc., the company that grants licenses to include HMB in dietary supplements, due to a lack of safety studies.

Pharmacodynamics
Several components of the signaling cascade that mediates the HMB-induced increase in human skeletal muscle protein synthesis have been identified in vivo.  Similar to HMB's metabolic precursor, -leucine, HMB has been shown to increase protein synthesis in human skeletal muscle via phosphorylation of the mechanistic target of rapamycin (mTOR) and subsequent activation of mTORC1, which leads to protein biosynthesis in cellular ribosomes via phosphorylation of mTORC1's immediate targets (i.e., the p70S6 kinase and the translation repressor protein 4EBP1). Supplementation with HMB in several non-human animal species has been shown to increase the serum concentration of growth hormone and insulin-like growth factor 1 (IGF-1) via an unknown mechanism, in turn promoting protein synthesis through increased mTOR phosphorylation. Based upon limited clinical evidence in humans, supplemental HMB appears to increase the secretion of growth hormone and IGF-1 in response to resistance exercise.

, the signaling cascade that mediates the HMB-induced reduction in muscle protein breakdown has not been identified in living humans, although it is well-established that it attenuates proteolysis in humans in vivo. Unlike -leucine, HMB attenuates muscle protein breakdown in an insulin-independent manner in humans. HMB is believed to reduce muscle protein breakdown in humans by inhibiting the 19S and 20S subunits of the ubiquitin–proteasome system in skeletal muscle and by inhibiting apoptosis of skeletal muscle nuclei via unidentified mechanisms.

Based upon animal studies, HMB appears to be metabolized within skeletal muscle into cholesterol, which may then be incorporated into the muscle cell membrane, thereby enhancing membrane integrity and function. The effects of HMB on muscle protein metabolism may help stabilize muscle cell structure. One review suggested that the observed HMB-induced reduction in the plasma concentration of muscle damage biomarkers (i.e., muscle enzymes such as creatine kinase and lactate dehydrogenase) in humans following intense exercise may be due to a cholesterol-mediated improvement in muscle cell membrane function.

HMB has been shown to stimulate the proliferation, differentiation, and fusion of human myosatellite cells in vitro, which potentially increases the regenerative capacity of skeletal muscle, by increasing the protein expression of certain myogenic regulatory factors (e.g., myoD and myogenin) and gene transcription factors (e.g., MEF2). HMB-induced human myosatellite cell proliferation in vitro is mediated through the phosphorylation of the mitogen-activated protein kinases ERK1 and ERK2.  HMB-induced human myosatellite differentiation and accelerated fusion of myosatellite cells into muscle tissue in vitro is mediated through the phosphorylation of Akt, a serine/threonine-specific protein kinase.

Comparison of pharmacokinetics between dosage forms
The free acid (HMB-FA) and monohydrated calcium salt (HMB-Ca) forms of HMB have different pharmacokinetics. HMB-FA is more readily absorbed into the bloodstream and has a longer elimination half-life (3 hours) relative to HMB-Ca (2.5 hours). Tissue uptake and utilization of HMB-FA is 25–40% higher than for HMB-Ca. The fraction of an ingested dose that is excreted in urine does not differ between the two forms.

Absorption of HMB-Ca
After ingestion, HMB-Ca is converted to β-hydroxy β-methylbutyrate following dissociation of the calcium moiety in the gut. When the HMB-Ca dosage form is ingested, the magnitude and time at which the peak plasma concentration of HMB occurs depends on the dose and concurrent food intake. Higher HMB-Ca doses increase the rate of absorption, resulting in a peak plasma HMB level (Cmax) that is disproportionately greater than expected of a linear dose-response relationship and which occurs sooner relative to lower doses. Consumption of HMB-Ca with sugary substances slows the rate of HMB absorption, resulting in a lower peak plasma HMB level that occurs later.

Excretion of HMB-Ca
HMB is eliminated via the kidneys, with roughly 10–40% of an ingested dose being excreted unchanged in urine. The remaining 60–90% of the dose is retained in tissues or excreted as HMB metabolites. The fraction of a given dose of HMB that is excreted unchanged in urine increases with the dose.

Metabolism
The metabolism of HMB is catalyzed by an uncharacterized enzyme which converts it to β-hydroxy β-methylbutyryl-CoA (HMB-CoA). HMB-CoA is metabolized by either enoyl-CoA hydratase or another uncharacterized enzyme, producing β-methylcrotonyl-CoA (MC-CoA) or hydroxymethylglutaryl-CoA (HMG-CoA) respectively. MC-CoA is then converted by the enzyme methylcrotonyl-CoA carboxylase to methylglutaconyl-CoA (MG-CoA), which is subsequently converted to HMG-CoA by methylglutaconyl-CoA hydratase. HMG-CoA is then cleaved into acetyl-CoA and acetoacetate by HMG-CoA lyase or used in the production of cholesterol via the mevalonate pathway.

Biosynthesis
HMB is synthesized in the human body through the metabolism of -leucine, a branched-chain amino acid. In healthy individuals, approximately 60% of dietary -leucine is metabolized after several hours, with roughly 5% (2–10% range) of dietary -leucine being converted to. Around 40% of dietary -leucine is converted to acetyl-CoA, which is subsequently used in the synthesis of other compounds.

The vast majority of -leucine metabolism is initially catalyzed by the branched-chain amino acid aminotransferase enzyme, producing α-ketoisocaproate (α-KIC). α-KIC is mostly metabolized by the mitochondrial enzyme branched-chain α-ketoacid dehydrogenase, which converts it to isovaleryl-CoA. Isovaleryl-CoA is subsequently metabolized by isovaleryl-CoA dehydrogenase and converted to MC-CoA, which is used in the synthesis of acetyl-CoA and other compounds. During biotin deficiency, HMB can be synthesized from MC-CoA via enoyl-CoA hydratase and an unknown thioesterase enzyme, which convert MC-CoA into HMB-CoA and HMB-CoA into HMB respectively. A relatively small amount of α-KIC is metabolized in the liver by the cytosolic enzyme 4-hydroxyphenylpyruvate dioxygenase (KIC dioxygenase), which converts α-KIC to HMB. In healthy individuals, this minor pathway – which involves the conversion of -leucine to α-KIC and then HMB – is the predominant route of HMB synthesis.

Chemistry
β-Hydroxy β-methylbutyric acid is a monocarboxylic β-hydroxy acid and natural product with the molecular formula C5H10O3. At room temperature, pure β-hydroxy β-methylbutyric acid occurs as a transparent, colorless to light yellow liquid which is soluble in water. β-Hydroxy β-methylbutyric acid is a weak acid with a pKa of 4.4. Its refractive index ($$\mathit{n}_\text{25°C}^\mathrm{\lambda=589nm}$$) is 1.42.

Chemical structure
β-Hydroxy β-methylbutyric acid is a member of the carboxylic acid family of organic compounds. It is a structural analog of butyric acid with a hydroxyl functional group and a methyl substituent located on its beta carbon. By extension, other structural analogs include β-hydroxybutyric acid and β-methylbutyric acid.

Synthesis
A variety of synthetic routes to β-hydroxy β-methylbutyric acid have been developed. The first reported chemical syntheses approached HMB by oxidation of alkene, vicinal diol, and alcohol precursors:
 * in 1877, Russian chemists Michael and Alexander Zaytsev reported the preparation of HMB by oxidation of 2-methylpent-4-en-2-ol with chromic acid (H2CrO4);
 * in 1880 and 1889, Schirokoff and Reformatsky (respectively) reported that the oxidative cleavage of the vicinal diol 4-methylpentane-1,2,4-triol with acidified potassium permanganate (KMnO4) yields HMB – this result is closest related to the first synthesis as cold dilute KMnO4 oxidises alkenes to vicinal cis-diols which hot acid KMnO4 further oxidises to carbonyl-containing compounds, and the diol intermediate is not obtained when hot acidic conditions are used for alkene oxidation.  In other words, racemic 4-methylpentane-1,2,4-triol is a derivative of 2-methylpent-4-en-2-ol and β-hydroxy β-methylbutyric acid is a derivative of both; and,
 * in 1892, Kondakow reported the preparation of HMB by permanganate oxidation of 3-methylbutane-1,3-diol.

Depending on the experimental conditions, cycloaddition of acetone and ketene produces either β-isovalerolactone or 4,4-dimethyloxetan-2-one, both of which hydrolyze under basic conditions to yield the conjugate base of HMB. The haloform reaction provides another pathway to HMB involving the exhaustive halogenation of the methyl-ketone region of diacetone alcohol with sodium hypobromite or sodium hypochlorite; Diacetone alcohol is readily available from the aldol condensation of acetone. An organometallic approach to HMB involves the carboxylation of tert-butyl alcohol with carbon monoxide and Fenton's reagent (hydrogen peroxide and ferrous iron). Alternatively, HMB can be prepared through microbial oxidation of β-methylbutyric acid by the fungus Galactomyces reessii.

Detection in body fluids
The concentration of naturally produced HMB has been measured in several human body fluids using nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy, liquid chromatography–mass spectrometry, and gas chromatography–mass spectrometry methods. In the blood plasma and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) of healthy adults, the average molar concentration of HMB has been measured at 4.0 micromolar (μM). The average concentration of HMB in the intramuscular fluid of healthy men of ages 21–23 has been measured at 7.0 μM. In the urine of healthy individuals of any age, the excreted urinary concentration of HMB has been measured in a range of 0–68 micromoles per millimole (μmol/mmol) of creatinine. In the breast milk of healthy lactating women, HMB and -leucine have been measured in ranges of 42–164 μg/L and 2.1–88.5 mg/L. In comparison, HMB has been detected and measured in the milk of healthy cows at a concentration of <20–29 μg/L. This concentration is far too low to be an adequate dietary source of HMB for obtaining pharmacologically active concentrations of the compound in blood plasma.

In a study where participants consumed 2.42 grams of pure HMB-FA while fasting, the average plasma HMB concentration increased from a basal level of 5.1 μM to 408 μM after 30 minutes. At 150 minutes post-ingestion, the average plasma HMB concentration among participants was 275 μM.

Abnormal HMB concentrations in urine and blood plasma have been noted in several disease states where it may serve as a diagnostic biomarker, particularly in the case of metabolic disorders. The following table lists some of these disorders along with the associated HMB concentrations detected in urine or blood plasma.

History
The first reported chemical synthesis of HMB was published in 1877 by the Russian chemists Michael and Alexander Zaytsev. HMB was isolated from the bark of Erythrophleum couminga (a Madagascan tree) in 1941 by Leopold Ružička. The earliest reported isolation of HMB as a human metabolite was by Tanaka and coworkers in 1968 from a patient with isovaleric acidemia.

The effects of HMB on human skeletal muscle were first discovered by Steven L. Nissen at Iowa State University in the mid-1990s. Nissen founded a company called Metabolic Technologies, Inc. (MTI) around the time of his discovery, which later acquired six HMB-related patents that the company has used to license the right to manufacture and incorporate HMB into dietary supplements. When it first became available commercially in the late 1990s, HMB was marketed solely as an exercise supplement to help athletes and bodybuilders build muscle. MTI subsequently developed two HMB-containing products, Juven and Revigor, to which Abbott Nutrition obtained the market rights in 2003 and 2008 respectively. Since then, Abbott has marketed Juven as a medical food and the Revigor brand of HMB as an active ingredient in food products (e.g., certain formulations of Ensure) and other medical foods (e.g., certain formulations of Juven).

title: Β-Hydroxy β-methylbutyric acid


text:
HMB

HMB may refer to:

Compounds

 * β-Hydroxy β-methylbutyric acid,, a metabolite of the essential amino acid leucine, synthesized in the human body
 * Human Melanoma Black, a monoclonal antibody

Languages

 * Humburi Senni language, spoken in Burkina Faso and Mali

Places

 * Half Moon Bay, California, city in the United States

Sports

 * Historical medieval battles, a modern sport

Other

 * Hawkeye Marching Band, the marching band for the University of Iowa
 * HabibMetro, a Swiss multinational bank in Pakistan
 * Heavy menstrual bleeding, a menstrual condition
 * Host Memory Buffer, an optional feature in version 1.2 of the NVMe specification, which allows SSDs to utilize the DRAM of the host machine
 * His/Her Magesty's Barque

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

title: HMB


text:
SS British Chivalry

SS British Chivalry was a British oil tanker sunk by a Japanese submarine in the Indian Ocean in 1944.

Construction
The steel-hulled ship was built by Palmers Shipbuilding and Iron Company of Jarrow in northern England for the British Tanker Company, the transportation arm of the Anglo-Persian Oil Company. Launched on 24 January 1929, the ship was 440 ft long and 57 ft in the beam, and powered by a 553 nhp quadruple expansion steam engine which gave her a top speed of 10 kn.

Sinking
On 22 February 1944 British Chivalry was sailing alone in the Indian Ocean, south-west of Addu Atoll in the Maldive Islands, on a voyage from Melbourne to Abadan while in ballast. At 10.30 a.m. the ship was attacked by the Japanese submarine JAPANESE SUBMARINE I-37, under the command of Lieutenant-Commander Nakagawa Hajime. The submarine first fired two torpedoes. These were spotted, and the ship took evasive action, so that one torpedo passed astern, but the second hit the ship in the engine room, killing most of the crew there. The survivors abandoned ship, as I-37 surfaced and shelled and finally torpedoed the ship, sinking her in position -0.83333°N, 68°W.

I-37 took the ship's captain, Walter Hill, as a prisoner. It then moved off and opened fire with machine guns on the lifeboats. For the next two hours it circled, firing indiscriminately at the lifeboats and men in the water before finally moving off. Fourteen men were killed and another five mortally wounded. The thirty-eight survivors were adrift for 37 days before finally being rescued by the British cargo liner MV Delane. Captain Hill was held as a prisoner at Penang until the end of the war.

In 1948 Lieutenant-Commander Nakagawa was tried by the War Crimes Tribunal for the murders of the crews of British Chivalry, and those of MV Sutlej on 24 February 1944, and MV Ascot on 29 February 1944.

He was found guilty and sentenced to eight years hard labour at Sugamo Prison, Tokyo, but was released in 1954 after only six years, following the end of the Allied occupation. It was not until 1978 that it was revealed that Nakagawa, while in command of the submarine JAPANESE SUBMARINE I-177, had also been responsible for the sinking of the Australian hospital ship AHS Centaur in April 1943, with the loss of 268 lives.

The men killed aboard British Chivalry are commemorated on Panel 19 of the Tower Hill Memorial in London.

title: SS British Chivalry


text: User talk:69.0.14.235

title: User talk:69.0.14.235


text: User talk:65.68.238.153

title: User talk:65.68.238.153


text:
User talk:CyberShadow

--Celestianpower hab 21:42, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Alien attack.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Alien attack.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 06:14, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: The image was uploaded in BMP format renamed to a .jpg extension. I simply converted the image to JPEG format. --Vladimir (talk)

License tagging for File:FAR icon.png
Thanks for uploading File:FAR icon.png. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 19:06, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: BSD license was not available from the license list. BSD license added manually. --Vladimir (talk)

Мне хотелось бы загрузить эту иконку Far'а в русскоязычную вики или на викисклад, чтобы сделать аналогичный юзербокс на русском, но пока не пойму как указать лицензию BSD, её нет в расскывающимся списке... --С уважением,  E xdeath  (обсуждение.) 22:46, 23 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Эксмерть (talk • contribs)

Update: Походу разобрался =) С уважением,  E xdeath  (обсуждение.) aka 90.189.161.114 (talk) 00:03, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

NowCommons: File:FAR icon.png
File:FAR icon.png is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:FAR icon.png. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case:. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 09:31, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

April 2010
Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit that you made to the page Worms 2: Armageddon has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Please use the sandbox for testing any edits; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing for further information. Thank you. Shadowjams (talk) 08:46, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Followed up on User talk:Shadowjams --Vladimir (talk) 08:48, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Romania
--Codrin.B (talk) 04:02, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:07, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

JavaScript RegExp problem
I noticed you have experience in JavaScript. I'm hoping you can help me with a problem I've run into writing a userscript.

Please see my post at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject JavaScript.

Thank you. The Transhumanist 12:11, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

title: User talk:CyberShadow


text:
Gunnar Setterwall

Carl Gunnar Emanuel Setterwall (18 August 1881 – 26 February 1928) was a Swedish tennis player who won four Olympic medals. In 1908, he won a bronze in the men's indoor doubles, with Wollmar Boström. Four years later, he won three more medals. In the mixed doubles (with Sigrid Fick) and indoor doubles (with Carl Kempe) tournament he reached the final but lost both times. Sigrid Fick was also his partner in the mixed indoor event and together they won a bronze medal.

Setterwall's father, also named Carl, was a multimillionaire controlling much of the iron works during the development of railways in Scandinavia. His son followed in his footsteps, eventually taking over the family firm.

title: Gunnar Setterwall


text:
Harpham

Harpham is a small village and civil parish in the East Riding of Yorkshire, England. It is located just south of the A614 road, approximately 5 mi north-east of Driffield and 7 mi south-west of Bridlington.

The civil parish is formed by the village of Harpham and the hamlets of Lowthorpe and Ruston Parva. According to the 2011 UK census, Harpham parish had a population of 303, a decline on the 2001 UK census figure of 318.

History
The village appears in the Domesday Book as belonging to King William, and having 29 ploughlands. The name of the village is thought to derive from the Old English of Hearpe-hām; the Salt-Harp village or farmstead. Although not on the coast, the proximity of the Holderness coastline is thought to be the influence of the salt. Three Roman mosaics were found near Harpham in 1905, and three more were discovered in 1950. The first three are now in the Hull and East Riding Museum. They are simply patterned. One represented a rectangular maze, one of only five examples known in Roman mosaics in Britain.

It is here that St John of Beverley was born in the 7th century; he became the Bishop of Hexham as well as the Bishop of York.

The church is dedicated to him and was designated a Grade I listed building in 1966, and is now recorded in the National Heritage List for England, maintained by Historic England. The Well of St. John, the local well, is named after him and is believed by many to have healing powers. The well is designated as a Grade II listed building.

In 1823, Harpham was a civil parish in the Wapentake of Dickering. The St. Quintin family were lords of Harpham. The foundations of the St. Quintin mansion were recorded as being to the west of the church. The church contains St. Quintin burials in the north aisle and a stained glass window to Sir William St Quintin, twenty-eighth in succession, who died in 1777. Baines also notes the village as being wholly agricultural, with a population of 251. Occupations included eight farmers, two grocers, two shoemakers, a blacksmith, a wheelwright, a tailor, a butcher, and the landlord of the St. Quintin Arms public house. There was also a linen manufacturer. A carrier operated between the village and Bridlington once a week. The nearest railway station was at Burton Agnes on the Hull to Scarborough line, but this closed in January 1970. Now, the nearest station is at Driffield.

The village gave its name to HMS Harpham, a Ham class minesweeper.

title: Harpham


text:
Talk:Fair comment

Actual Malice article
Mr. Berlet nice to see your good work again.

You do recognice that the changes in the article suddenly include actual maice? You do recognice that it is impossible for me to verfiy your source?

Please find a source that is available to the whole wikipedia public. I would value it greatly.

Please understand that there is a wikipedia article called actual malice. I doubt it is nessary to include both definition in one article. Unless of course one wants to advance his own agenda which i am sure nobody really intends.

Otherwise I value your input very much. Thank you for the changes you undoubtedly intend to do now.

--Zirkon 21:44, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Interesting quotation
This is a quote from this website: http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/hub/A656796

"The term 'fair comment' gives the impression that the comments have to be 'fair', but in fact, all that is required is that the opinion is honestly held."

And this was my sentance: "A legal case in which the plaintiff looses against the defendend on reasons of "fair comment" does therefore not mean that the comment issued by the defendant was justified or fair, but that the plaintiff could not prove the bad intentions of the defendant conclusively."

Yes I see differences... Your comments Mr. Berlet?

 * Zirkon, could you state your position clearly, please, rather than trying to engage in rhetorical interrogation? Also, the talk page becomes hard to read with so much space between your sentences. I'm also confused as to how you can use a source on British libel law for a discussion on the LaRouche situation.SlimVirgin (talk) 22:48, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

 * I find it remarkable that you call this rhetorical interogation. And I am stiil waiting for comments from Mr. Berlet. Comments which are sorely needed for he changed the relevant part of the paragraph.

 * By the way I did not realise that it was you who added the canada part. Therefore i have to ask you too if you could come up with a legal source on the internet - since it is imposible for the wider audience to access this book. Thank you for your valuble input SlimVirgin. Concerning your confusion about the use of an english article: I believe in question was the possibility to misunderstand the word "fair" as a qualifier in this legal term which is similarly used in the U.K.. As always i value your input but since it was Mr. Berlet who changed the paragraph it is him i should be explaining this to - after he has had a chance to comment.

Following a fruitfull internet search i was able to find a similiar sentence that comes from a USA source.

This is the source that resembles the British source: http://www.lawyers-media.com/guide/subs.htm...

"The word "fair" is inappropriate, because the comment or opinion could be exaggerated or prejudiced provided it is honestly held."...

This is my original source upon which i largely based my article.  ... "a statement of opinion (no matter how ludicrous) based on facts which are correctly stated and which does not allege dishonorable motives on the part of the target of the comment."...

And now again in retrospect my sentence: ... "A legal case in which the plaintiff looses against the defendend on reasons of "fair comment" does therefore not mean that the comment issued by the defendant was justified or fair, but that the plaintiff could not prove the bad intentions of the defendant conclusively."...

Yes I see your point we could exchange "bad intentions" with actual malice.

Considering the meaning of "fair comment" I believe that this sentence has its value and should be returned into the article "fair comment". It does after all put the suggestive "fair" into the proper context. This is something that is nessesary following the demonstratable likeliness to be misslead by this legal term as a layman. How do you see this matter Mr. Berlet? --Zirkon 07:26, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

 * I have rewritten the explanation of fair comment in the U.S. once again to make matters more clear. In most states, the "fair comment" defense requires a factual basis. "The privilege of 'fair comment' for expressions of opinion depends on the truth of the facts upon which the comment is based" according to U.S Supreme Court Justice Brennan who wrote the ruling in Times v. Sullivan. This is based on Alabama law.  I do not have the laws of New York state handy, but since you are attempting to write an apologia for [Political views of Lyndon LaRouche|Lyndon LaRouche] on another page based on a New York lawsuit, you would first have to show that under New York defamation law, "fair comment" does NOT require a factal basis. I do not know if it does or does not. In any case, the judge in the LaRouche case who ruled it was not defamation to call LaRouche anti-Semitic is clearly indicating the defendants introduced sufficient evidence to butress the factual basis of their opinion that LaRouche was an anti-Semite. --Cberlet 13:09, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Why I do this:
“I note that Zirkon created a Wikipedia page on fair comment that mischaracterised the actual complicated legal meaning of the term in a way that supports the LaRouchite line on the New York defamation case.” Cberlet 20:52, 29 August 2005 (UTC) (emphasis added)

 * Following this statement it is nessary for me to show the reader that my own work (the copyedited version of Willmcw) does in fact echo the understanding of fair comment from the external source. '

First Version of the wikipedia article Fair comment:
Fair comment is a legal term for a defense used in defamation cases. It holds that when a public figure is defamed, even with an absurd or false accusation, they must prove that the opinion was stated maliciously (with hate, dislike, intent and/or desire to harm) in order for defamation to have occured.

A legal case in which the plaintiff looses against the defendend on reasons of "fair comment" does therefore not mean that the comment issued by the defendant was justified or fair, but that the plaintiff could not prove the bad intentions of the defendant conclusively.

While this phrase was in use before it became a ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court in the case New York Times v. Sullivan in 1964.

External Links dictionary law.com

Source article version:
Following the Link: dictionary law.com one can find the source article upon which the findings of the first Wikipedia article were based. I refrain from directly posting the whole article since I am not certain about the copyright issues in this context.

Second wikipedia article version of "Fair comment" from Cberlet (with additons by Slimvirgin)
Fair comment is a legal term for a common law defense in defamation cases (libel or slander).

United States In the United States, the traditonal privilege of "fair comment" is seen as a protection for robust, even outrageous published or spoken opinions about public officials and public figures. Fair comment is defined as a "common law defense [that] guarantees the freedom of the press to express statements on matters of public interest, as long as the statements are not made with ill will, spite, or with the intent to harm the plaintiff."[1].

The defense of "fair comment" in the U.S. since 1964 has largely been replaced by the ruling in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964), (U.S. Supreme Court). This case relied on the issue of actual malice, which involves the defendant making a statement known at the time to be false, or which was made with a "reckless disregard" of whether the statement was true or false. If "actual malice" cannot be shown, the defense of "fair comment" is then superceded by the broader protection of the failure by the plaintiff to show "actual malice."

Each state writes its own laws of defamation, and the laws and previously decided precedants in each state vary. In many states, (including Alabama where the case of Times v. Sullivan originated), the "fair comment" defense requires that the "privilege of 'fair comment' for expressions of opinion depends on the truth of the facts upon which the comment is based" according to U.S Supreme Court Justice Brennan who wrote the ruling in Times v. Sullivan.[2]

It is still technically possible to rely only on the common law defense of "fair comment," but since there is no federal law of defamation, the Times v. Sullivan case, decided by the U.S. Supreme Court, extends over state laws as a powerful legal precedant, and it provides more legal protection to a defendant, since under the concept of "actual malice," the absolute truth of the assertion need not be demonstrated.

For more on U.S. defamation laws, see: Media Libel - University of Houston

Canada

In Canada, for something to constitute fair comment, the comment must be on a matter of public interest (excluding gossip), a fair and honest expression of the author's opinion, based on known and provable facts, and with no actual malice underlying it. The cardinal test of whether a statement is fair comment is whether the author honestly believed the opinion, and whether it could be drawn from the known facts. It should also be obvious that the comment is an opinion and is not purporting to be a fact (Crawford 2002, pp. 48-52). (See Chernesky v. Armadale Publications Ltd. [1978] 6 W.W.R. 618 (S.C.C.))

References dictionary law.com Media Libel - University of Houston Opinion: "New York Times Co. v. Sullivan Crawford, Michael G. The Journalist's Legal Guide, Carswell, 2002

Comparison and Analysis
To make a comparison and an analysis of the 3 Versions (1. wikipedia article, wikipeda cited source article, 2. wikipedia article) I have made a sentence by sentence core statement analysis of every version. The letters in each Version are followed by a descriptive headline for the sentence that is beeing analized. Under the sentence Headline is the quote of the analized sentence. The core statements of the sentence are numbered for reference.

Ver 1 (= 1. Wikipedia article)
Core statements of Version 1

A) Fair comment is a legal term.
“Fair comment is a legal term for a defense used in defamation cases.”

B) Fair comment definition:
”It holds that when a public figure is defamed, even with an absurd or false accusation, they must prove that the opinion was stated maliciously (with hate, dislike, intent and/or desire to harm) in order for defamation to have occured.”
 * 1) -This includes the points that malicouse intend has to be proofed. (This is commonly done in the following way: plaintive has to proofe that the defendend used the defaming words knowing that they were wrong (i.e. false, baseless etc.).)
 * 2) -By inversion this definiton says that “fair comment” does not qualify an opinion held by the defendend as true or not true. (As it is only nessary for the defendent to show that he did not act with malicouse intentions – As it is only nessary for the plaintiff to show that the defendend did act with malicouse intentions for the defense of fair comment to fail.).

C) Explanation of definiton:
“A legal case in which the plaintiff looses against the defendend on reasons of "fair comment" does therefore not mean that the comment issued by the defendant was justified or fair, but that the plaintiff could not prove the bad intentions of the defendant conclusively.”

 * 1) -Explanation that the legal term fair comment does not a qualify a statement. In essence again the definition of “fair comment” but inverted. Or in other words the definition of something shows what it is, but in defining what something is you also define what something – implicitly - is not.

Ver 2 (= Source article of 1. wikipedia article)
Core statements of version 2

A) “fair comment” definition:
“a statement of opinion (no matter how ludicrous) based on facts which are correctly stated and which does not allege dishonorable motives on the part of the target of the comment.”

 * 1) -F.C. makes no qualifing statement about the opinion.
 * 2) -F.C. can only be used when the facts are correctly stated.
 * 3) -Dishonorable motives are not what led the statement of opinion maker.

B) Explanation of definition:
“The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that to protect free speech, statements made about a public person (politician, officeholder, movie star, author, etc.), even though untrue and harmful, are fair comment unless the victim can prove the opinions were stated maliciously-with hate, dislike, intent and/or desire to harm.”

 * 1) - F.C. in its current form is based on a US S.C. decision.
 * 2) - F.C. is there to protect free speech.
 * 3) - F.C. is only usable on a public person
 * 4) - F.C. does not evaluate (qualify) the statement made nor the effects thay may have
 * 5) - F.C. the victim (public person) has to be unable to prove the bad intentions against the victim.

C) limits of Fair Comment:
Thus, a public figure may not sue for defamation based on published opinions or alleged information which would be the basis of a lawsuit if said or published about a private person not worthy of opinion or comment.

 * 1) - F.C. as a defense can only be used against a public figure.
 * 2) - F.C. a private person could sue for defamation against an opinion or comment.

D) Used as a defense:
This is a crucial defense against libel suits put up by members of the media.

 * 1) - F.C. It is a legal defense mostly used by the media.

Ver 3 (= 2. Wikipedia article (version of Cberlet))
Core statements of version 3

A) Single sentence definiton
“Fair comment is a legal term for a common law defense in defamation case.”

 * 1) - F.C. is a legal term.

B) Lead in:
“In the United States, the traditonal privilege of "fair comment" is seen as a protection for robust, even outrageous published or spoken opinions about public officials and public figures.”

 * 1) -F.C. as used in the U.S.
 * 2) -F.C. is a traditional privilege
 * 3) -F.C. is a protection for opinions spoken or pulished whatever those opinions may be
 * 4) -F.C. is usable only as a defense against public figures

C) Definition
“Fair comment is defined as a "common law defense [that] guarantees the freedom of the press to express statements on matters of public interest, as long as the statements are not made with ill will, spite, or with the intent to harm the plaintiff."[1].”

 * 1) -F.C. is a common law defense
 * 2) -F.C. helps to guarantee the freedom of the press to express statements
 * 3) -F.C. is only usable on matters of public interest.
 * 4) -F.C. cannot be used if the statements were used with bad intentions against the plaintiff

D) History of the defense
“The defense of "fair comment" in the U.S. since 1964 has largely been replaced by the ruling in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964), (U.S. Supreme Court).”

 * 1) -the way F.C.was used has largely been replaced by a US SC ruling since 1964.

E) Specifics of the historical case: actual malice
“This case relied on the issue of actual malice, which involves the defendant making a statement known at the time to be false, or which was made with a "reckless disregard" of whether the statement was true or false. “

 * 1) -Defintion of actual malice

F) Connection between actual malice and the “fair comment” defense
“If "actual malice" cannot be shown, the defense of "fair comment" is then superceded by the broader protection of the failure by the plaintiff to show "actual malice." ”

 * 1) -actual malice must be proven.
 * 2) -failure to show actual malice means the defense of “fair comment” stands regardless of what the actual (local) definition of “fair comment” is.

G) About the laws of defamation
“Each state writes its own laws of defamation, and the laws and previously decided precedants in each state vary. “

 * 1) -defamation law is state law.

H) About how the “fair comment” defense is implemented in many states
“In many states, (including Alabama where the case of Times v. Sullivan originated), the "fair comment" defense requires that the "privilege of 'fair comment' for expressions of opinion depends on the truth of the facts upon which the comment is based" according to U.S Supreme Court Justice Brennan who wrote the ruling in Times v. Sullivan.[2]

 * 1) -F.C. must be based on the truth of the facts upon which the comment is based.
 * 2) -That F.C. must be based on true facts is a requirement in many states. Inversion: If the facts upon which a voiced published oppinon (whatever the oppinion may be) is based are not true then F.C. can not be used.
 * 3) -F.C. must be based on true facts in Alabama.
 * 4) -The statements of this sentence are based on U.S.S.C. Justice Brennan.
 * 5) -The statements are based on the written form of the U.S.S.C. ruling.

I)Practial use of “fair comment” following the introduction of “actual malice”
“It is still technically possible to rely only on the common law defense of "fair comment," but since there is no federal law of defamation, the Times v. Sullivan case, decided by the U.S. Supreme Court, extends over state laws as a powerful legal precedant, and it provides more legal protection to a defendant, since under the concept of "actual malice," the absolute truth of the assertion need not be demonstrated.”

 * 1) F.C. is a defense that can technically rely only on the common law defense but the absolute truth of the comment (assertion) has to be demonstrated.
 * 2) F.C. as State law is now normaly overshadowed by the U.S.S.C precedant case ruling.
 * 3) ”Actual malice” is a concept
 * 4) The absolute truth of the comment (assertion) of the defendant does not have to be demonstrated since the U.S.S.C. precedent ruling to use “fair comment”.

Following this sentance by sentance analysis I make these observations
Statement I)1 and its inversion I)4 is not compatible to the statements of B)3 and C)4
 * 1) There is no apparant mischaracterisation of “Fair Comment” in version 1 compared to external source (version 2).
 * 2) All three versions do have deficits. It should be possible to construct a new version that includes the best of all three versions.
 * 3) There is a logical break within the version of Mr. Berlet:

Why?

a)

“Assertion” is not defined in this context explicidly.

b)

If by implication “assertion” is actually another word for comment of the defendend than it is - following I)1 and I)4 - nessesary to proofe under the traditional understanding of F.C. that the comment is true. B)3 explains that comments are protected whatever they may be. Therefore for the traditional defense of F.C. to work one must proofe that the comment the defendend made is true. But comments are protected whatever they may be – even if not true.

c)

C)4 states therefore that true statements/comments can not be used when they were made with bad intentions against the plaintiff.

Conclusions

 * 1) The allegations that I mischaracterised the definition of "Fair comment" to further an agenda are false.
 * 2) Mr. Berlet makes crutial logical errors in his wikipedia article version of "fair comment".
 * 3) If Mr. Berlet does not change the last paragraph of his 3. Version this should be done for him.
 * 4) It is not possible to know if Mr. Berlet made those errors on purpose. But it is certain that he expressed that his Point of View was in danger. As can be demonstrated by the fact that I was constantly accused of rewriting history or of trying to fabricate apologia. Further investigations will reveal that he constantly evaded questions concerning his views upon the topic.
 * 5) * Zirkon: here is what I posted on the fair comment page that you keep trying to rewrite to make it seem that LaRouche is not a notorious anti-Semite--Cberlet 13:13, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) * Please stop trying to rewrite the facts of the laws of defamation to apologize for LaRouche's antisemitism.--Cberlet 00:41, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 7) * but since you are attempting to write an apologia for [Political views of Lyndon LaRouche|Lyndon LaRouche] on another page--Cberlet 13:13, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 8) * Ridiculous waste of time. Pedantic. Pointless. Attempt to rewrite history. You asked for my comments. I have answered honestly--Cberlet 19:49, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 9) * Stop this ridiculous nit-picking.--Cberlet 15:10, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 10) * The court ruling is a matter of public record. Attempts to craft apologia for the long track recond of LaRouche's antisemitism are POV. This page threats LaRouche fairly.--Cberlet 02:45, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 11) * Please stop trying to invent a way to explain a court decision when none is needed. --Cberlet 17:44, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 12) * Wow! I am very sorry, but much of --Zirkon's text appears to me to be pseudo-intellectual gibberish.Cberlet 13:22, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 13) * It still seems to me to be a lot of verbiage that results in the same situation that existed before: fancy footwork by a POV warrior out to defend LaRouche from the obvious and well-documented published claim that LaRouche is an antisemite. Cberlet 13:22, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 14) * We do not need to misrepresent the law of defamation to arrive at that conclusion--Cberlet 13:22, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 15) Unfortunatedly I am a little guilty of pressing on with some questions that were not at all helpfull in defusing or furthering the debate. The actual result is still fully the responsebility of Mr. Berlet as he could have always answerd or deflected in a meaningfull manner...
 * 16) I appologise for making the "fair comment" wikipedia article as a way to introduce the actual meaning of "Fair Comment" into a debate in another Wikipedia article. I thought at the time it would be a nice byproduct of the argument at hand and a good way to circumvent the stonewalling of certain editors. In doing so I have effectively politisied the topic of this article. Any future editor should be aware of this...
 * 17) The findings in this post are in need of a peer review prozess. I will send requests for help to the noticeboards.

--Zirkon 20:27, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Comment
I was asked to comment on this. I know little or nothing about it, but would start researching it by looking in an introductory legal textbook on Defamation or here's some books I found doing a keyword search:

 * The Making of the Modern Law of Defamation by Mitchell, Paul, 1951- ISBN 1841133043 Publisher: Hart Publishing Publish Date: 19 August, 2005 Binding: HARDCOVER
 * Libel Law, Political Criticism, and Defamation of Public Figures: the United States, Europe, and Australia by Amponsah, Peter Nkrumah, 1961- ISBN 1593320116 Publisher: LFB Scholarly Publishing Publish Date: February, 2004 Binding: Library Binding
 * The Law of Defamation, Privacy, Publicity, and Moral Rights: Cases and Materials on Protection of Personality Interests by Sheldon W. Halpern ISBN 0870843435 Publisher: Anderson Pub Co Publish Date: May, 1988 Binding: Paperback

I'm sure those are not the only books and probably not the best one. Simply a suggestion to consult a few reputable sources. I am the distinct impression at least one editor is trying to work from conclusion to source rather then source to conclusion. Another note, if you are actually arguing a case, you would probably brief both defenses although that would depend on many factors. Fred Bauder 01:46, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Another Comment
I think that Zirkon is trying to rewrite this page in order to go to one of the Lyndon LaRouche pages and write an apologia for the notorious antisemitic conspiracy theories of LaRouche, who a court ruled could be called an antisemite as "fair comment." This is not a proper process for Wikipedia.--Cberlet 01:54, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Hello Mr. Berlet nice to see your comment. Mr. Berlet please note that: --Zirkon 07:34, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) I used your version of the article of "fair comment" in my statement on the talkpage of the website you are refering to. To make my point I do not have to change the meaning of "fair comment".
 * 2) If you do read closely you will find logical inconsistencys in the last paragraph of your "fair comment" version.
 * 3) Please do not try to devine my intentions as this is a form of an ad hominem argument.
 * 4) Please respond to the observations and conclusions I have made.
 * 5) Even though I know this will annoy you - let me thank you for introducing the historical perspective into the "fair comment" article. It still needs some work as there are later U.S. Supreme Court decisions that are also relevant for todays use of "fair comment"

My take
IANAL, which means I'm also not a "peer."

First off, from where I sit as a native speaker of American English, the word "fair" in "fair comment," does not refer to whether or not a comment was fair with respect to the subject, only to whether it was fair for the speaker to be commenting. For example, making a public statement about a public figure would be "fair" (e. g. Saying "The mayor is a pompous fool!" on television), while a public statement about a private individual would be "unfair;" saying "My next door neighbor is a pompous fool!" on television wouldn't be "fair" unless your neighbor is able to also come on television to defend herself.

Common usage of the phrase "fair use" in language may or may not have an effect on how a court interprets it, however.

Secondly, don't get too hung up on facts, at least in the United States. A statement of facts is protected speech at least by statute (if not by the state consitution outright) in just about every state. Being a part of common law, fair comment only comes into play when speech isn't explicitly protected by statute (as facts are), and so it would only really apply to statements of either fictions (which may or may not be a deliberate lie) or of opinion.

From the looks of things, facts only come into play as part of building up the "preponderance of evidence" that civil suits are supposed to hinge on (i. e. deciding whether there was actual malice). In my previous example, the trial would be a contest between my ability to show why it is reasonable for me to believe the mayor is a pompous fool, while the mayor would try to demonstrate why such a view would be unreasonable (and, therefore, probably said with malice). It is not necessarily a matter of whether it is reasonable for anybody to hold the views I stated, only that it is reasonable for me to hold the view with the information (facts or fictions) that I have available to me.

If I received a letter on the mayor's stationery, the content of which led me to believe that the mayor was a pompous fool, it would be fair for me to state my opinion as such unless I actually believe that the letter was a forgery. The letter may have been a falsehood, but if I believe it and can present a preponderance of evidence that I believed it ("Look at the seal and the signature!"), it is fair for me to make a comment on what I thought of that letter.

The mayor, being a public figure and naturally having the attention of the press, would be able to defend his character in the court of public opinion by pointing out that the letter was a forgery, making fair comments of his own, probably including "David was a pompous fool to believe this letter was genuine!"

Finally, since there isn't supposed to be any original research in the articles, using the word "therefore" should be a red flag.

Once again, IANAL. David Iwancio 02:32, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Nicely put. I am a lawyer, and could not have said it better. BD2412  talk 13:26, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

I still have some problems with this sentence:
'"It is still technically possible to rely only on the common law defense of "fair comment," but since there is no federal law of defamation, the Times v. Sullivan case, decided by the U.S. Supreme Court, extends over state courts as a powerful legal precedant, and it provides more legal protection to a defendant, since under the concept of "actual malice," the absolute truth of the assertion need not be demonstrated."'

--Zirkon 14:43, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) As I said before "assertion" is not expicitly defined.
 * 2) Where does the concept/idea of absolute truth come from?
 * 3) What does "absolute truth of the assertion" mean?
 * 4) Did I had to demonstrate the absolute truth of my assertions (oppinions?/comments?) before the U.S. Supreme Court decision on "fair comment"?
 * 5) Does this mean that absolutly true assertions stated with maliciouse intend are defamations?

In libel and slander cases, truth is an absolute defence, no matter what. Prior to the emergence of the actual malice standard, any flasehood in a statement could be used as a basis for damiges in some cases, and the falshood did not have to be malicious. A fair comment defense was most often limited to accurately reproting the statemetns and opnions of others, and to reasonable expressions of opnion based on generally true statements of fact. For example, "fair comment" was cited as a defense in a case where a book reviewer made very negative statemetns about a book and about the quality of the work of the author, but did not protect unrelated negative ststemetns about the author. DES (talk) 16:30, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Guppy313 19:05, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) The statements before the court over which the plaintiff is suing
 * 2) Historically, dunno.  However, it's probably something mentioned in your state's declaration of rights.
 * 3) Verifiable facts, as opposed to a statement of opinion (such as an interpretation of facts).
 * 4) Absolute truth is generally protected by statutes.  "Fair comment" doesn't come into play unless a statement is made that isn't absolutely true (such as a statement of opinion).  The question becomes, then, not whether what the defendant states is true, but whether the defendant truly believes what they stated.
 * No, they are not. Facts can be repeated with or without malice, as facts are protected by legislative acts (which trumps common law).  The "actual malice" standard is only applied to either statements of opinions or statements of fiction (which may or may not be deliberate lies).

 * You are incorrect about that last point. Rad our article on Actual malice and the articles it links to. The "actual malice" standard was first propounded by the SCOTUS in a case where it had been alleged that factual errors had been made in a published statement, and testamony did appear to establish that the statements published were not 100% accurate. Whether the errors were such as to defame the public offical who sued was debated but the state trial court and appeals court held that they were, and awarded a damage verdict of $500,000.00 against the NY Times. (The fact that the person who sued ws not even mentioned by name, that some of the errors concerned the number of time MLK had been arrested, and which protest song was sung on a particualr occasion, and the like, was not considered significant by the state count.) In any case, the "actual malice" standard protects agaisnt suits over the publication of factual errors, when made in good faith. It doesn't really deal much with opnion, since it deals with "false statements" and opnions are neither true nor false, rather they are or are not honestly held. DES (talk) 21:42, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I believe it could be possible to formulate this in a way that does not raise so many questionsmarks... (at least for me)

Like this:

 * ''It is still technically possible to rely on the common law defense of "fair comment" with out refering to the "actual malice" standard set by the scotus but that would only be the practical when the defendend is absolutly sure that the facts upon which the opinion of the defendend was based were true. If those facts are not absolutely true (and the the actual malice standard is not taken into account) than the defendend could be sued by the plaintive for damages.

 * ''The actual malice standard was set by the supream court in the case Times v. Sullivan. This case acts as a powerful precedent over state courts.
 * ''"Actual malice" lifts the nessessity of being faultless in the reporting of the facts from the defendend. Instead it raises the question if factual errors were made in good faith. "Actual malice" means then that the defendend intentionaly stated false facts. It is assumed that if the facts were stated intentionaly falsely that any opinions that were made based upon those facts were done with malice. If the plaintive can prove malice on the side of the defendend the common law defense of "fair comment" is broken.

Any cosponsors for this bill ? ;)

Even better would be any suggestions for improvement!

Simple test if the questions can still be asked with the proposed changes:
 * 1) As I said before "assertion" is not expicitly defined.
 * 2) *This problem does not occure now - assertion is not used.
 * 3) Where does the concept/idea of absolute truth come from?
 * 4) *The idea of absolute truth is put into a different perspective.
 * 5) **before: "...under the concept of "actual malice," the absolute truth of the assertion need not be demonstrated."
 * 6) **now: "If those facts are not absolutely true (and the the actual malice standard is not taken into account) than the defendend could be sued by the plaintive for damages."
 * 7) What does "absolute truth of the assertion" mean?
 * 8) *This question cannot be asked anymore.
 * 9) Did I had to demonstrate the absolute truth of my assertions (oppinions?/comments?) before the U.S. Supreme Court decision on "fair comment"?
 * 10) *Again this question is impossible to ask now.
 * 11) Does this mean that absolutly true assertions stated with maliciouse intend are defamations?
 * 12) *Since absolute truth is now attributed to the statement of facts this paradox solves itself.

--Zirkon 19:05, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Here is a somewhat revised version:
 * ''It is still technically possible to rely on the common law defense of "fair comment" with out referring to the "actual malice" standard set by the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) but that would only be a likely course of action when the defendant is absolutly sure that the facts upon which the opinion of the defendant was based were true, or that any falsehoods are not defamatory. If those facts are not absolutely true (and the actual malice standard is not taken into account) than the defendant could be sued by the plaintiff for damages, although the plaintiff would need to establish to the satisfaction of a jury that the statements were defamatory, and that the defandant published or made them.

 * The actual malice standard was set by the U.S. Supreme Court in the case New York Times v. Sullivan. This case is a powerful precedent which has a major impact on defamation cases in the state courts.

 * "Actual malice" removes the requirement of being faultless in the reporting of the facts by the defendant. (Under the law prior to this decision any false statement could, if found to be defamatory, be grounds for damages.) Instead it raises the question of whether factual errors were made in good faith. "Actual malice" means then that the defendant intentionaly made false statements of alleged facts, or recklessly failed to verify alleged facts when any reasoanble person would have checked. If it is held that the defendant made intentionally false statements of fact, that will form a powerful argument that any statements of opinion  based upon those facts were made with malice. If the plaintiff can prove malice on the part of the defendant the common law defense of "fair comment" is defeated.

 * The "actual malice" standard only applies when the statement is about a "public official", or a "public figure", or in some cases about a "matter of public interest". When it does apply it offers so much more protection to the defandant that it would be very rare for the defendant to assert "fair comment" instead. When the allegedly defamatory statement is about a purely private person, who is not a "public figure" in any way, the defandant may need to resort to the defence of "fair comment" instead.

 * Also, the "actual malice" standard is specifically part of United States law, derived from the U.S. Constitution. The defense of "fair comment" is a part of the older common law, and so might apply in non-U.S. jurisdictions which share the common-law tradition, such as the United Kingdom and the British Commonwealth.

How is that? DES (talk) 19:39, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

 * This is a very much improved version of my proposal. I like the new additions concerning the common law tradition and the use of fair comment on private persons and the improved writing of course. All this makes it a much more usefull Wikipedia article for the common reader. Maybe we should do something about the abreviation "scotus" - make it a link or write it out on the first occurance and put the abreviation into brackets...
 * But those are details, I believe this could go live as it is now (Btw. already fixed some typos I saw - I hope you don't mind).

 * I like it very much and it got my vote to crawl out of the sandbox right away.

 * Thank you!

 * --Zirkon 21:04, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

 * Thanks. I made a few further touch ups. DES (talk) 21:31, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I Honestly believe that this could go live now but...

Lets check how this totally rewriten and expanded paragraph works with the rest of the article :

 * ''In the United States, the traditonal privilege of "fair comment" is seen as a protection for robust, even outrageous published or spoken opinions about public officials and public figures. Fair comment is defined as a "common law defense [that] guarantees the freedom of the press to express statements on matters of public interest, as long as the statements are not made with ill will, spite, or with the intent to harm the plaintiff."[1].

 * ''The defense of "fair comment" in the U.S. since 1964 has largely been replaced by the ruling in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964), (U.S. Supreme Court). This case relied on the issue of actual malice, which involves the defendant making a statement known at the time to be false, or which was made with a "reckless disregard" of whether the statement was true or false. If "actual malice" cannot be shown, the defense of "fair comment" is then superceded by the broader protection of the failure by the plaintiff to show "actual malice."

 * ''Each state writes its own laws of defamation, and the laws and previously decided precedants in each state vary. In many states, (including Alabama where the case of Times v. Sullivan originated), the "fair comment" defense requires that the "privilege of 'fair comment' for expressions of opinion depends on the truth of the facts upon which the comment is based" according to U.S Supreme Court Justice Brennan who wrote the ruling in Times v. Sullivan.[2]

 * ''It is still technically possible to rely on the common law defense of "fair comment" with out referring to the "actual malice" standard set by the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) but that would only be a likely course of action when the defendant is absolutly sure that the facts upon which the opinion of the defendant was based were true, or that any falsehoods are not defamatory. If those facts are not absolutely true (and the actual malice standard is not taken into account) than the defendant could be sued by the plaintiff for damages, although the plaintiff would need to establish to the satisfaction of a jury that the statements were defamatory, and that the defandant published or made them.

 * The actual malice standard was set by the U.S. Supreme Court in the case New York Times v. Sullivan. This case is a powerful precedent which has a major impact on defamation cases in the state courts.

 * "Actual malice" removes the requirement of being faultless in the reporting of the facts by the defendant. (Under the law prior to this decision any false statement could, if found to be defamatory, be grounds for damages.) Instead it raises the question of whether factual errors were made in good faith. "Actual malice" means then that the defendant intentionaly made false statements of alleged facts, or recklessly failed to verify alleged facts when any reasoanble person would have checked. If it is held that the defendant made intentionally false statements of fact, that will form a powerful argument that any statements of opinion  based upon those facts were made with malice. If the plaintiff can prove malice on the part of the defendant the common law defense of "fair comment" is defeated.

 * The "actual malice" standard only applies when the statement is about a "public official", or a "public figure", or in some cases about a "matter of public interest". When it does apply it offers so much more protection to the defandant that it would be very rare for the defendant to assert "fair comment" instead. When the allegedly defamatory statement is about a purely private person, who is not a "public figure" in any way, the defandant may need to resort to the defence of "fair comment" instead.

 * Also, the "actual malice" standard is specifically part of United States law, derived from the U.S. Constitution. The defense of "fair comment" is a part of the older common law, and so might apply in non-U.S. jurisdictions which share the common-law tradition, such as the United Kingdom and the British Commonwealth.

Hm - at first glance I believe some structure could be usefull. Also we must decide if we define one term more than once in the article. Especially If we use subheadlines this should be considered as it can be usefull for quick reference by the reader to have repetitions of definitions (internal article links could also be a great idea).

So how about a quick and short definiton of Fair comment in the first paragraph - under subheadline "Definition".

Then we could go for the "historical developement" subheadline or we could go for the "legal use today" subheadline...

And the next question that goes beyond the scope of the article is of course: Is there already some kind of article structure with subheadlines for such constantly evolving legal terms? If there is not it could be useful to consider the development of such a structure. In the event of a new entry it would be easier to already have such a basic structure in place - also it would be possible to asses what is missing in this new entry - the downside could be endless copyediting...

Okay - unfortunatedly I will be away for something like 7 days... Starting today (wednesday).

So as I said it could go life now but there is always room for improvement... Thank you for your help with this paragraph and see you in a week.

--Zirkon 23:54, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I have checked google on "fair comment". Since it prefers wikipedia over any other source I will put the improved version online now. Should there be any objections I am sure I will be able to work them out with the interested parties...

Zirkon 16:52, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Spiller v Joseph - UK Supreme Court
New Supreme Court of the United Kingdom case - suggests among other things the renaming of the defence to "honest comment"

http://www.supremecourt.uk/docs/UKSC_2009_0210_Judgment.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.173.142.114 (talk) 14:24, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Fair comment. 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/20050830085000/http://www.hfac.uh.edu/comm/media_libel/libel/definition.html to http://www.hfac.uh.edu/comm/media_libel/libel/definition.html

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) 15:50, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Fair comment. 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/20050306234230/http://dictionary.law.com/definition2.asp?selected=723&bold=%7C%7C%7C%7C to http://dictionary.law.com/definition2.asp?selected=723&bold=%7C%7C%7C%7C
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050406091010/http://www.hfac.uh.edu/comm/media_libel/libel/defense.html to http://www.hfac.uh.edu/comm/media_libel/libel/defense.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:59, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

title: Talk:Fair comment


text:
User talk:Skiurchin928

Welcome to Wikipedia!
Hello, welcome to Wikipedia!

Here are some tips:
 * Take a look at the Simplified Ruleset.
 * Read the Tutorial, How to edit a page and the Manual of Style.
 * Find out how to revert, move and merge pages.
 * Sign your posts on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~).
 * Add yourself to the New user log and a regional notice board
 * Ask questions at the Village pump or Help desk.
 * Use the Show preview button
 * Provide an Edit summary
 * Add the correct image copyright tag to any images you upload
 * Take a look at Consensus of standards
 * Create a User page
 * Be bold
 * Ignore all rules

If you feel a change is needed, feel free to make it yourself! Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone (yourself included) can edit any article by following the  link. Wikipedia convention is to be bold and not be afraid of making mistakes. If you're not sure how editing works, have a look at How to edit a page, or try out the Sandbox to test your editing skills.

If, for some reason, you are unable to fix a problem yourself, feel free to ask someone else to do it. Wikipedia has a vibrant community of contributors who have a wide range of skills and specialties, and many of them would be glad to help. As well as the wiki community pages there are IRC Channels, where you are more than welcome to ask for assistance.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me on my talk page. Thanks and happy editing, Alf 21:44, 29 August 2005 (UTC).

License tagging for Image:RisenStarBelmontCC.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:RisenStarBelmontCC.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Media copyright questions. 01:05, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Copyright violation in J. Lack
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on J. Lack, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because J. Lack is unquestionably copyright infringement, and no assertion of permission has been made. To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting J. Lack, please affix the template to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that '''this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here''' CSDWarnBot (talk) 15:00, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

title: User talk:Skiurchin928


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Black recluse

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!)  09:08, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

black recluse
No evidence to support article's claims; original author unresponsive to queries.

More specifically, a request was placed on the author's (User:Corvun) talk page for documentation of the claims on the page, after several searches of the relevant literature came up with no evidence to support the existence of a "black recluse" spider living in the Pacific Northwest (or anywhere). No response was given; the author later deleted the request (as part of a general "housecleaning" of his talk page).

Further, the page makes claims concerning this creature which are rather specific in nature--which need external documentation; the page also makes the rather specious claim (regarding the "ignorance of local fish and wildlife organizations") that the local authorities on fauna in the region are uninformed.

--EngineerScotty 22:00, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete There is a Brown Recluse Spider. Maybe the names got confused, as one article on the internet acknowledges. Groeck 22:04, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. I lived in the area for a decade, and I never heard of it. --Carnildo 00:00, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.