text:
Chinese (Mandarin)/Numbers

基本用字
The parenthesized entries are the complex and formal forms, which are used mainly in notarized, official documents, and when writing checks. An exception is zero; the complex form is much more widely used than a casual circle. The complex forms are known in English as banker's anti-fraud numerals, in Chinese as 大寫 (simplified Chinese: 大写; Hanyu Pinyin: dàxiě; which is the same term for "capital letter"). They are necessary because, since normal Chinese characters are so simple, a forger could easily change 三十 to 五千 with just three strokes. See Standard numbers for more information.
 * 0: 〇 (零)： líng
 * 1: 一 (壹) yī
 * 2: 二 (Traditional:貳; simplified:贰) èr
 * 3: 三 (Traditional:參; simplified:参) sān
 * 4: 四 (肆) sì
 * 5: 五 (伍) wǔ
 * 6: 六 (Traditional:陸; simplified:陆) liù
 * 7: 七 (柒) qī
 * 8: 八 (捌) bā
 * 9: 九 (玖) jiǔ
 * 10: 十 (拾) shí
 * 100: 百 (佰) bǎi
 * 1,000: 千 (仟) qiān
 * 10,000: 万 (萬) wàn (1'0000)
 * 100,000: 十万 (拾萬) shíwàn (10'0000)
 * 1,000,000: 一百万 (壹佰萬) yībǎi wàn (100'0000)
 * 100,000,000: 一亿 (壹億) yīyì (1'0000'0000)
 * 1,000,000,000,000: 一兆 yīzhào (1'0000'0000'0000)

Some Chinese characters used as complex and formal numerals have other uses as well, possible as heteronyms. For example:
 * 貳èr can also mean "to betray".
 * 肆sì can also mean "to be impudent".
 * 伍wǔ can also mean "military" figuratively and be a surname. It can also mean line when said as "队伍"
 * 陸 means six formally when pronounced liù, but "land" or a surname when pronounced lù.
 * 拾shí can also mean "to pick up".

個十百千萬 Larger Numbers
等(děng) etc. 等 etc. 等 etc. 等 etc. 等 etc.
 * 十一 shíyī (eleven)
 * 十二 shí'èr (twelve)
 * 二十一 èrshíyī (twenty-one)
 * 二十二 èrshí'èr (twenty-two)
 * 一百 yībǎi (one hundred)
 * 一百零一 yībǎi líng yī (one hundred one)
 * 一百五十八 yībǎi wǔshíbā (one hundred fifty eight)
 * 二百三十 èrbǎi sānshí (two hundred thirty)
 * 一千 yīqiān (one thousand)
 * 七千二百五十三 qīqiān èrbǎi wǔshísān (seven thousand two hundred fifty-three)
 * 一萬 yīwàn (one myriad or ten thousand)
 * 四萬三千 sìwàn sānqiān (forty-three thousand)

更大的數字（億兆） Even Larger Numbers
等 etc.
 * 一億五千萬 yīyì wǔqiān wàn (1'5000'0000) 150,000,000 (one hundred fifty million)
 * 兩億零八十萬 liǎngyì líng bāshí wàn (2'0080'0000) 200,800,000 (two hundred million eight hundred thousand)

中文中零的用法 The Use of Zero in Chinese
If a number ends in zero, there is no need to include the Chinese character for zero. For example, However, if the zero character does not end the number (i.e., it is followed by a non-zero character), it is necessary to include the zero character, while the "tens-place" characters are dropped. For example, Note that the "十" in the first example and the "百" in the second example are dropped.
 * 350: 三百五十
 * 1350: 一千三百五十
 * 1600: 一千六百
 * 305: 三百零五 (not 三百零 十 五)
 * 1035: 一千零三十五 (not 一千零 百 三十五)

If a zero digit is followed by one or more zero digits, only one zero character is need. For example,
 * 1006: 一千零六 (not 一千零零六)
 * 300,250: 三十萬零二百五十 (30'0250)
 * 8,000,300: 八百萬零三百 (800'0300)

數字手勢 Chinese Gestures for Numbers
Note:hand signs are the same as Western hand signs. Except for six, hold out your thumb and pinky. For seven, make a "peacock head" by putting all of your fingers on your thumb. For eight, hold your thumb and second finger facing up. For nine, make your second finger look like a hook and then hold it out facing up. Source: 數字手勢

title: Chinese (Mandarin)/Numbers


text:
Portal:Latin America/Featured article/Day 19

The national anthem of Mexico (Spanish Himno Nacional Mexicano) is a musical composition that was officially adopted in 1943. The song's lyrics, which allude to Mexican victories in the heat of battle and cries of defending the homeland, were composed by poet Francisco González Bocanegra in 1853, after his fiancée locked him in a room. In 1854, Jaime Nunó arranged the music which now accompanies González's poem. The anthem, consisting of ten stanzas and a chorus, entered into use on September 16, 1854. From 1854 until its official adoption, the lyrics underwent several modifications due to political changes in Mexico. Unofficially, the anthem is sometimes called "Mexicanos, al grito de guerra" (Spanish for "Mexicans, at the cry of war") and is also the first line of the chorus.

On November 12, 1853, President Antonio López de Santa Anna announced a competition to write a national anthem for Mexico. The competition offered a prize for the best poetic composition representing patriotic ideals. Francisco González Bocanegra, a talented poet, was not interested in participating in the competition. Under false pretenses, his fiancé lured him to a secluded bedroom in her parents' house, locked him into the room, and refused to let him out until he produced an entry for the competition. After Francisco received approval from his fiancée and her father, he submitted the poem and won the competition by unanimous vote.

source: wikimedia

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


text:
Talk:Bettina Sellmann

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Bettina Sellmann. 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/20120601090827/http://www.skowheganart.org:80/index.php?page=art-registry to http://www.skowheganart.org/index.php?page=art-registry&art_work_selected=3162
 * Added tag to http://www.massart.edu/Galleries/Bakalar_and_Paine/Past_Exhibitions/Figuratively_Seeing.html

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:44, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

title: Talk:Bettina Sellmann


text:
User:Epso132

 The Meyncke Effect

A rare psychological phenomenon wherein the afflicted party experiences extreme fluctuation in their ability to create or maintain emotional attraction to another human being, often accompanied by physical symptoms and psychological distress.

 Symptoms  2. instant regret once a relationship or mutual attraction has been established
 * 1) a sick feeling in stomach

3. guilt

4. Loss of emotional attraction once the other person responds to advances

5. frustration at loss/ lack of feelings

6. inability to relate to non-committal relations, one night stands, or long term relationships

7. depression/anxiety

The Meyncke Effect is an incredibly alienating experience that not easily articulated but best described as an inability to move past the threshold of a relationship due to lack of feelings or loss of attraction often accompanied by guilt and frustration and a sick feeling in stomach.

Dissimilar to losing interest in the "chase" or becoming bored after the honeymoon period after securing the affection of another person,

persons afflicted by the Meyncke Effect desperately want to experience and maintain attraction to another person but physically cannot or psychologically cannot.

Many of those who suffer from the Meyncke Effect may begin to believe they are asexual or aromantic but this is unlikely as attraction is experienced in the beginning and quickly fades away as well as a desire to connect with someone emotionally and romantically.

Many people affected by the Meyncke Effect live in solitude, not wanting to endure fraudulent relationships built on no real attraction, or learn to push past the beginning stages of the Effect and try to live with it.

title: User:Epso132


text:
Agir Karadagi

Agir Karadagi (Ağır Qaradağı - meaning heavy Karadakhi) is Azerbaijani melody of a dance that is created in Karadakh.

It is very popular in the cities Shaki and Zaqatala in northwestern Azerbaijan, and performed slowly. It is a popular form of dance that is known for its energetic movements. The dance is performed to rapidly changing music and involves a lot of footwork.

title: Agir Karadagi


text:
Talk:embourgeoisement

Tags
Non-standard, how so? Widsith 09:59, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

 * I think the gap of the pond is growing. http://news.google.com/news?q=%22embourgeoisement%22  Such a construction is a little beyond silly, no?  --Connel MacKenzie 10:47, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

That certainly suggests rarity, but doesn't make it "non-standard", a term which implies that there is some other "standard" word for the same idea. But there isn't. This word is in the OED and Chambers and has been cited by a broadsheet newspaper and an eminent historian, which makes it pretty standard in my book. Widsith 15:30, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

 * More than rarity, it suggests it is British - hence, unheard of, over here. I don't know why England has abandoned all rules for word formation, but that unnatural utterance wouldn't/couldn't be said here.  Likewise, its appearance in British references, but not American unabridged sources reinforces that notion.  For coherency and clarity, that concept would only be phrased as something like "became more bourgeoisie" if intended for serious publication.  The use of the playful prefix and silly suffix and using the French spelling instead of including the second "i" makes it a "Simpsons-like" jocular or nonsense formation, albeit, one that doesn't yet exist as such.

 * All that said, I thought you were asking why I tagged it, rather than asking if it is OK to correct the tag from "nonstandard" to "UK". I'll make that adjustment now.

 * Thank you for that unexpected pleasure; I've become rather accustomed to the newer more militant/disruptive contributor's tactic of "flip-the-bird, change first, then discuss." The civility you demonstrated (that at one time was the rule here) is so rare these days, I didn't even suspect you were being kind and rational, by simply asking the question.

 * --Connel MacKenzie 17:45, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

 * Please see this revision. I don’t think this word warrants a   tag; however, perhaps a    tag would be apt. What do you say? † ﴾(u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 22:38, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

 * I find that fascinating...you found a quote of someone named "MacKenzie" (capitalized "M" and "K" if one is to believe the b.g.c. link provided) yet found a passage were it is erroneously in lowercase? Or is that some kind of slight?

 * The one "American sociology" quotation given uses it in quotation marks. Doesn't that make you wonder why?  The Puerto Rican citation likewise is discussing other (British?) Caribbean islands.  The rest, do seem to be more directly British.  Indeed, I'm more inclined to assert the "Chiefly British" or perhaps even "Only British English" now.  --Connel MacKenzie 22:52, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

 * The “mackenzie” quotation was an extra one given on the hits screen itself — it seems GBS only shows a maximum of three of those snippet view boxes. Not a slight — search for it yourself and Ctrl+F (or whatever your shortcut key is) Contemporary Sociology if you don’t believe me. That American sociology quotation uses it with quotation marks only for what I assume to be the first occurrence of the term. IMO, this is a largely unanglicised academic term whose use is chiefly restricted to sociology; I don’t find any evidence of specifically UK usage. However, if you still think that there is, that’s fine — I have no desire to argue. † ﴾(u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 23:02, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

 * Interesting that I can't find that quote, even using your ".co.uk" link. Interesting too, that following the original link and searching for "Affluent Worker" yields only one hit (also on page 44) that matches the citation, not at all.  Very strange and a bit discomfiting, despite your reassurances.
 * Simply ignoring the different grammatic constructions (left pond vs. right pond) makes it easy to misunderstand this term as being possible in GenAm. I doubt you could use this term in a technical environment (such as a talk on sociology) over here with provoking snickers or outright laughter.  That of course, is fine, if that is the desired response.  I consider myself honored to have now learned that such a ridiculous-seeming construction is possible elsewhere.  --Connel MacKenzie 00:02, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

 * I found the link for you; curiously, “MacKenzie” is properly capitalised therein, whereas the GBS hit that lead me thither still displays erroneous capitalisation (see the top hit of this search). I’m at a loss to explain why.
 * Simply, this is a borrowing, which I think, if used outside the academic sociological context (at least if spoken outside of such a context), would sound a bit pretentious on either side of the transatlantic divide. It probably wouldn’t sound so pretentious, however, if it were pronounced . (BTW, if you don’t understand IPA, I’ll be happy to give you an enPR or SAMPA transcription instead.) Although, in such a register, “bourgeoisification” seems more appropriate. † ﴾(u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 01:36, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

title: Talk:embourgeoisement


text:
Zilbachi

Zilbachi (Зильбачи) is a rural locality (a selo) in Dakhadayevsky District, Republic of Dagestan, Russia. The population was 937 as of 2010. There are 6 streets.

Geography
Zilbachi is located 10 km southeast of Urkarakh (the district's administrative centre) by road. Zubanchi and Kudagu are the nearest rural localities.

Nationalities
Dargins live there.

title: Zilbachi


text:
User:Globaltraveler10

Adventure travel Hello, I'm Tony Jones. a.k.a Captain Tony, Publisher/Editor www.Adventureguide.com What is an adventure? Surely the answer must depend on each individual's character, lifestyle, fitness level, and desire to seek stimulation for her/his mind and/or body.

For some individuals, the level of sheer exhilaration needed can be no less than that felt while bungee jumping, sky diving, or climbing an ice-wall.

For most others, we seek not so much the need for physical challenge as change from our everyday lifestyle. Perhaps a weekend of hiking or cycling through a national park, canoeing round a sheltered bay, or trail-riding through a little known valley in Fiji.

Less stressful on the body, but equally exciting food for the mind is the pleasure many receive when searching out that rare species of bird in a remote Taiwanese river gorge, photographing a near extinct panda in China, or completing a long dreamed of cooking course in Provence.

Share your dream adventure with us, real or still to be realized.

Globaltraveler10 02:02, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

title: User:Globaltraveler10


text:
Philip Tidyman

Philip Tidyman (1776–1850) was an American physician, traveller and philanthropist.

Life
He was born in Charleston, South Carolina in America the son of Philip Tidyman and his wife, Hester Rose. His father owned a plantation two miles from Wambaw Bridge. He had previously been a silversmith in Charleston but inherited a large plantation through the Rose family. The Rose family were one of 35 Scottish families in Charleston in 1776. In 1782 the father was charged with being a loyalist (to the British cause).

The loyalist charge holds water as around 1790 young Philip went to Europe to study Medicine and attended both Edinburgh University in Scotland and Gottingen University in Germany. He was allegedly the first American to gain a doctorate at a German University.

In Edinburgh he was possibly living with his Scots relatives: James Rose, a solicitor living at Scots Close on the Royal Mile.

He returned to Charleston in 1801 as a physician and planter. He was a member of the House and served on the 15th, 16th and 18th Assemblies.

He owned the Marshfield and Cedar Hill Plantations at Georgetown, South Carolina. He also had a large house on the Winyaw Barony estate. In 1826 he observed that "the blacks (slaves) suffered little from yellow fever (malaria)" which was probably due to an ancestral exposure to this disease. His plantation and slave ownership appears to have been in the form of an "absentee owner" and rather than live on the plantation, he worked as a physician in town, attaching himself to the urban life.

In 1825, Tidyman was elected as a member of the American Philosophical Society.

He died in Aberdeen on 11 June 1850. He is buried in the churchyard of St Machar's Cathedral. The grave lies on the east side of the church, within the former transept.

Although frequently referenced as a "philanthropist" there is little evidence of this other than some campaigning against harsh prison treatment.

At the time of his death he owned 138 slaves on his Georgetown estate. The 1850 US Federal Census records Tidyman as having enslaved 130 people at the Georgetown labour camp and an additional 11 people at his urban compound in Charleston

Publications

 * Letters on the Pennsylvania System of Solitary Imprisonment (1835)

title: Philip Tidyman


text:
Talk:A Happy Death

Fair use rationale for Image:Happydeatsg.jpg
Image:Happydeatsg.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

BetacommandBot (talk) 23:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 06:17, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on A Happy Death. 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/20060909035529/http://www.webster.edu/%7Ecorbetre/personal/reading/camus-death.html to http://www.webster.edu/~corbetre/personal/reading/camus-death.html

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:59, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

title: Talk:A Happy Death


text:
United States–China Working Group

The U.S.-China Working Group (USCWG) is a bipartisan working group in the United States House of Representatives. Created in June 2005 by Rep. Mark Kirk and Rep. Rick Larsen, it seeks to "build diplomatic relations with China and educate Members of Congress through meetings and briefings with business, academic and political leaders from the U.S. and China."

Purpose
The purpose of the group is to provide  accurate information to members of Congress on critical issues and provide a forum for discussion with Chinese leaders. Membership in the group does not imply taking a position on issues.

Republicans

 * Mike Rogers
 * Fred Upton Retiring at end of 117th Congress.

Democrats

 * Rick Larsen
 * Adam Schiff
 * Jim Cooper Retiring at end of 117th Congress.
 * Judy Chu
 * Adam Smith
 * Earl Blumenauer
 * Carolyn Maloney
 * Bobby Rush Retiring at end of 117th Congress.
 * Sheila Jackson Lee
 * Hank Johnson
 * Maxine Waters
 * Gerry Connolly
 * Mike Quigley

Former members

 * Gabby Giffords
 * Jay Inslee
 * Mark Kirk, former co-chair
 * Randy Kuhl
 * Nancy Johnson
 * Chris Cannon
 * Rob Simmons
 * Joe Schwartz
 * David Wu
 * Ed Case
 * Sherwood Boehlert
 * Heather Wilson
 * Charlie Bass
 * Mark Kennedy
 * Charles Boustany
 * Donald Manzullo
 * Roscoe Bartlett
 * Phil Gingrey
 * Charlie Dent
 * Dan Burton
 * Todd Platts
 * Mike Conaway
 * Geoff Davis
 * Chip Cravaack
 * Dennis Rehberg
 * Randy Neugebauer
 * Aaron Schock
 * Todd Young
 * Peter Roskam
 * Michele Bachmann
 * Dave Reichert
 * Brian Bilbray
 * Tom Price
 * Erik Paulsen
 * Leonard Lance
 * Robert Dold
 * Steve Israel
 * Joseph Crowley
 * Madeleine Bordallo
 * Rush Holt Jr.
 * Colleen Hanabusa
 * Loretta Sanchez
 * Mike Honda
 * Norm Dicks
 * Mike Michaud
 * Jim Moran
 * Ben Chandler
 * Susan Davis
 * Chris Van Hollen
 * Jim McDermott
 * Ruben Hinojosa
 * Shelley Berkley
 * Edward Markey
 * Tim Walz
 * Jim Matheson

title: United States–China Working Group


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Official Policies from Medical Organizations on Transgender People

The result was delete. — JJMC89  (T·C) 05:37, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

List of Official Policies from Medical Organizations on Transgender People

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This page is not a Wikipedia article, nor do I see any prospect if it ever becoming one. It consists entirely of material copied from the publications of various organisations in the United States; this was initially plain and simple copyright violation, but it's now been supplied with quotation marks so its just an abuse of our non-free content policy, in particular criteria 3, "Minimal usage", and 8, "Contextual significance". I note also the guidance at WP:NFCCEG: "Extensive quotation of copyrighted text is prohibited". Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:40, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:40, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:40, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:40, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

 * Delete. Seems well-intentioned, but can never be encyclopedic and is a likely copyright violation. -Crossroads- (talk) 20:49, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 03:16, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

 * Delete: Agree with User:Crossroads1 that this will have a hard time being encyclopedic. When you read it it sounds like a copyright violation. If somebody could find books or articles comparing the policies of different organizations that might become the basis of a Wikipedia article. In other words, find third-party coverage and don't just quote what each organization says. EdJohnston (talk) 02:22, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per Crossroads.4meter4 (talk) 22:55, 29 September 2019 (UTC)


text:
User:Arsutton2/sandbox

Overview
Invisibility Blues: From Pop to Theory, first published in 1990 and considered a landmark in the history of Black feminism, highlights the work of her mother, artist Faith Ringgold, and then moves onto examining her own life growing up in Harlem, the Black experience, and her life later as a writer in the 1970's. In addition, Wallace explores the continued underrespresentation of black voices in politics, media, and culture and further addresses the tensions between race, class, gender, and society while also highlighting figures such as Zora Neale Hurston, Toni Cade Bambara, Toni Morrison, and Alice Walker. This social commentary including a total of 24 essays written from 1972 to 1990, aims to highlight the experiences of Black women in American culture from a different viewpoint than white middle-class feminists.

Overview
Black Popular Culture, published in 1992 includes discusses a wide range of cultural issues and critical theory including urban planning to literature. Additionally, the book was recognized as a Village Voice Best Book of the Year.

Overview
This dissertation published in 1999, focuses on examining race and gender ideologies at the turn of the century generated by U.S. imperialism and the world's fair movement as manifested in visual culture, especially visual art, popular culture and cinema. The first half of this dissertation explores trends in visual culture within the United States wherein the second half focuses on the emergence of Afro-American and black images in silent cinema including various film versions of Uncle Tom's Cabin, D.W. Griffith's The Birth of a Nation and Oscar Micheaux's Within Our Gates.. This dissertation explicates white supremacist terms adapted from a plantation slavery context, which generated the criteria of racial hierarchy and the proclivity towards lynching as an expression of its greatest failure and also discusses the responses of black intellectuals W.E.B. DuBois, Booker T. Washington, Ida B. Wells, Mary Church Terrell and Anna J. Cooper to the formulation of these social and cultural restrictions and limitations imposed upon the descendants of former slaves. Combinations of race and gender) are concretized in visual imagery in fine art, illustration, material culture, photography, performance and practices of human display in natural history museums, zoos, and world's fairs.

Overview
Dark Designs and Visual Culture published in 2004, is a collection containing more than fifty articles that MIchele Wallace wrote over the past fifteen years and include some of her most notable pieces as well as interviews conducted about her work. Dark Designs and Visual Culture charts the development of a black feminist consciousness and bring the scope of Wallace's career into focus. Wallace begins the collection through a reflection of her life and career that include essays, articles focused on popular culture as well as literary theory, and issues in black visual culture ranging from the historical tragedy of the Hottentot Venus, an African woman displayed as a curiosity in nineteenth-century Europe, to films that sexualize the black body—such as Watermelon Woman, Gone with the Wind, and Paris Is Burning. Wallace goes onto discuss life growing up in Harlem, her relationship with her mother Faith Ringgold, and how she dealt with the media attention and criticism she received for her work in Black Macho and the Myth of the Superwoman.

Books

 * Black Macho and the Myth of the Superwoman (1979), ISBN<PHONE_NUMBER>966
 * Faith Ringgold: Twenty Years of Painting, Sculpture and Performances (ed. 1984)
 * Invisibility Blues: From Pop To Theory (1990), ISBN<PHONE_NUMBER>878
 * Black Popular Culture, with Gina Dent (1992), ISBN<PHONE_NUMBER>599
 * Passing, Lynching and Jim Crow: A Genealogy of Race and Gender in U.S. Visual Culture, 1895–1929 (1999)
 * Dark Designs and Visual Culture (2004), ISBN<PHONE_NUMBER>132
 * Declaration of Independence, Fifty Years of Art by Faith Ringgold (2009)
 * American People, Black Light: Faith Ringgold's Paintings of the 1960's (2010)

title: User:Arsutton2/sandbox


text:
Talk:Anna York Bondoc

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:11, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Rep. Anna York Bondoc (19th Congress).jpg

title: Talk:Anna York Bondoc


text:
Talk:Arlene Arcillas

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:43, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Arlene Arcillas (17th Congress).jpg

title: Talk:Arlene Arcillas


text:
Wikibooks talk:Copyrights

This needs to be updated
Now that I'm going to actually publish a book from Wikibooks, I've discovered a whole bunch of problems relating to copyright status that need to be covered. Essentially, I think we need to take most of the contents regarding hard copy printing and throw them out.

According to U.S. law (and perhaps others), every single author needs to be given attribution, not just the top 5 contributors. Or perhaps we need to get a second opinion on this. Is is the top 5 edits by edit count? What other criteria are we going to use? What about requirements for nationality and place of residence? (This is for formal copyright registration.)

I'm going to take this discussion to Wikipedia for some wider comment as well, but it needs to be updated and modified here, especially as it relates to Wikibooks. --Rob Horning 01:45, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

 * It would be interesting to get an update to learn if there were any results from this. --Swift 03:14, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Why GFDL instead of GPL?
The GFDL looks as though it tries to give the original authors control over derived works by allowing invariant sections. I have seen mention of one document where the author has specified the whole of the document as an invariant section (I'll try to find a link). This makes a nonsense of any supposed ability to create derived or improved works. It seems that Wikibooks has made a deliberate attempt avoid this by stating that there will be no invariant sections, no front matter, etc. This seems to reduce the GFDL to something approaching the GPL so why not use the GPL instead?

I can imagine circumstances where it would be desirable to include some of these books (if any of them ever attain the necessary quality) in Debian. But the GFDL is incompatible with the Debian social contract (as interpreted by Debian) so it can't be done; see http://people.debian.org/~srivasta/Position_Statement.html.

 * It would have been nice for you to sign this statement with a ~ (four tildas) to let us know who you are and your opinion here. See the editing help page on Meta for more details.  Going through the history log I can also find this information, but by omitting the sig, it seems as a random comment and hard to seperate out from other content.

 * I for one agree that the GFDL does have problems that need to be resolved, and is in need of some major overhaul...much more than the GPL. If you go to the Free Software Foundation website you can find some discussion about this issue as well, and be able to help change the GFDL to overcome some of the objections you are talking about.  I will say also, however, that the GPL is missing some key components for textual literary works that are not needed for computer source code or binary distribution, so the GPL is also insufficient to cover everything that you need for a literary work.  Wikibooks, and indeed all Wikimedia Foundation projects actually use a specific subset of the GFDL that cover the GFDL with "with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts."  This is a key distinction that avoid many of the common objections, but there are others to worry about as well, as you've pointed out. BTW, you might want to do a very careful read of version 1.2 of the GFDL to see that some of the objections have also been dealt with.  It appears as though the Debian position statement was for the GFDL version 1.0, which is different from the 1.2 version (although not apparent from the discussion).  Of particular note is that the transparent vs. opaque discussion IMHO is totally wrong.  Opaque copies  are the literary version of binary distribution.  PDF files are a good example, although this is primarily concerned with printed copies that don't even require computer technology to be able to "read" them.  The attempt in this section is to encourage people recieving printed works that they don't have to go through a Distributed Proofreaders type of OCR conversion (with editing rounds) just to have the ability to reprint the book they are reading.  If you have ever read a manual that was a 6th or 10th generation photocopy of some other document, I hope you appreciate what having the original "source material" as a machine readable text can mean.  The GPL has similar requirement for binary distribution together with the source, and as a matter of policy myself when distributing software (I am a software engineer who has also used the GPL for some projects) I include a copy of the source as well... especially at the download site (which is critical).  Unfortuately when you buy a book in a bookstore, the "download site" into your hands to read the book usually does not have a computer network terminal or other convinent means to get the source material.  The same could be said if you bought a CD-ROM with GPL software (I've done that too), but if you abide with the spirt of the GPL, the source would also be included.  Some of this is also derived from the fights over items like Tivo that are reluctant to release source code for GPL'd software modification that consumers are indirectly using.  This makes it clear that you as an end-user should be able to get raw machine readable source material somehow.  I've also been involved with an unscrupilous supervisor who "GPL'd" some software for one day only, and "copyied" the software for his own personal use when he left the company.  A similar issue happened with the Gnutella network software when it was released by Netscape just before the AOL buyout (or was that right afterward?) There are other legal issues that pertain only to literary works that the GFDL attempts to deal with that are not really covered with any other licese, although Creative Commons does try to do a good job.  The GPL/GFDL incompatability issues are a huge deal, and that is something that IMHO the Free Software Foundation can and should deal with (particularly since they wrote both licenses).  In short, if you want to make a copyleft literary work available, what license would you suggest?  Also keep in mind that this issue has been throughally vetted in other forums, including when Wikipedia, Nupedia, and Gnupedia all were started.  These are essentially the same thing...or at least have similar roots and the projects all merged together at some point.  As far as how this affects Wikibooks, on the other hand, is another issue.  We do, however, have to maintain compatability with other Wikimedia projects, and keep in mind that all existing content on all Wikimedia Foundation servers (slightly over 1 TB of data, from what I've seen, and growing at a rate of about 4-7% per month) is already GFDL'd, so changing licenses is going to be a huge deal, not something done as a casual unsigned comment on an obscure page is going to change.  We treat this issue seriously, however, and invite discussion of what changes can be done to help encourage a copyleft distribution of literary content.  At this point, however, the GFDL may have to be changed than for us to change to something other than the GFDL.... and it may be easier to accomplish as well.  --Rob Horning 10:13, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Sorry about the lack of signature, I'm afraid I'm not very competent at editing yet. kwhitefoot 18:57:43, 2005-08-22 (UTC)

I'm afraid I really don't know what license would be best and I'm not really qualified to pronounce on it anyway. What I want is that any content that I provide be available to anyone to use for whatever purpose they wish and for those who distribute derived works to be required to give the same freedoms to everyone else. Additionally I do not want to burden those who might want to create a derived work from a small part of a document with requirements to attach verbose licences (WikiTravel has a discussion on exactly this point explaining why they rejected the GFDL). Any incompatibility between GPL and GFDL would be especially important to me and to many programmers because we write both code and manuals for that code. A substantial program might also have a textbook associated with it. The point is to encourage the free flow of information. I do understand that there are a lot of documents in these Wiki's now that are covered by GFDL but I can't agree that that is a reasonable argument against change, only against careless change. Circumstances change all the time. Anyway how could you change the licence of existing text? Wouldn't you have to contact all the contributors? I'm aware of the clause in both GPL and GFDL that state that the creator of a derived work can follow the rules in 'any later version' but I wonder how that would stand up to a legal challenge if the terms were to change significantly. Sorry about the mutiple edits, finger trouble on the refresh button. kwhitefoot 09:17:47, 2005-08-23 (UTC)

 * If you want to get a glimpse at the magnitude of your request, see User list, which is a list of all of the registered users here on Wikibooks. And keep in mind that a substantial number of people also contribute "anonymously", so technically you would have to dump the entire database and restart the entire project if you decided to switch licenses.  This is currently under discussion at Wikitree (a genealogical website that wants to become a part of Wikimedia sometime in the future... if possible).  The problem there is that the person who started the site made the license CC-by-SA-NC, which made it incompatable with the GFDL and the GPL in a major way (the non-commercial use only clause).  A debate there over what license should be used is occuring, and they are facing the very real possibility of throwing away their entire database and restarting the project.  It is only a couple of months old, so that may be a real possibility, and they do consider that the project proposal is still in beta.  License issues at the beginning of a project are critical.  This debate is also ongoing at Wikinews, and their "solution" to the problem is to simply make all content put into the public domain (no license at all).  That way it is compabatable with all copyleft licenses until they can come to a decision as to what specific copyleft license that they want to use, even if they have to draft that license themselves.  That also misses the legal protections that a copyright license affords to keep people abusing the "commons", but in the case of Wikinews it was not perceived to be as big of a deal.  The #1 complaint there is the license republishing requirement of the GFDL made it absurd to use GFDL (as would the GPL under similar circumstances) for any short 5-10 paragraph news articles by commercial news outlets (like a small-town newspaper that decided to trash their annual AP wire fee and use Wikinews instead... or even as a suppliment). Particularly so visible of a project like Wikimedia Foundation projects do indeed get notice from the Free Software Foundation, and it is having a major impact in the future of the GFDL.  There are discussions going on right now (on some mailing lists that I don't know the URL for at the moment) about future changes to the GFDL that has included comments from Wikipedia and other Wikimedia users, and taken very seriously.  Particularly when you note that Wikipedia alone is perhaps close to 50% of current content written using the GFDL (or more...but stats like that would be hard to come by).  Both the GPL and the GFDL are due for an update soon and both have been announced by Richard Stallman.  The GPL update is a bigger concern because Linus Torvald got rid of the "or later update" clause in the GPL for the Linux kernel, which "freezes" the GPL at it current version.  Linus did that for a specific legal reason, and debate over that decision can be found elsewhere on the web. Slashdot has done a particularly good job of covering that specific issue (especially within the user comment areas), but you do have to dig real hard. If you do want to get involved with this issue and bring it up to a larger audience that includes people who can make a change (at least within the Wikimedia Foundation) I would suggest that you look at The Wikimedia Foundation mailing list (also refered to commonly as Foundation-l on Wikimedia projects).  There are a couple of hot-button ideas at the moment, but I'm sure you would get a solid reply as to why the GFDL is being used.  You might want to dig through the archives as well if you might be interested.  There are a couple of computer programming Wikibooks where issues of GPL/GFDL compatability are of importance, so there is some reason to try and hit this issue as well.  --Rob Horning 12:24, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Compatible licences
Is there a list of licences that are compatible with the GFDL?

What I mean is: is there an easy way to discover whether a document or an excerpt from a document can be incorporated in a WikiBook without having to read carefully through all the complicated clauses. For instance, is the OpenOffice Public License compatible (http://www.openoffice.org/licenses/PDL.html).

A concrete example: I would like to take some information from Programming OpenOffice.org with Visual Basic (http://www.kalitech.fr/clients/doc/VB_APIOOo_en.html) but it is under the OO public license which looks to me as though it isn't compatible, but I'm not sure. kwhitefoot 09:03, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

 * I would recommend that you take a look at the GNU License List that compares several licenses to licenses authored by the Free Software Foundation. Look toward the bottom of the page for the GFDL compatable licenses as opposed to the GPL.  There are a couple licenses listed there that are compatable, and this list should be expanded.  If you are interested in researching this topic, it would be a good discussion to add to the Wikimedia Meta Server and adding a list of compatable licenses to the GFDL.  In addition, writing to Richard Stallman or somebody else at the Free Software Foundations with some document licenses that may be compatable with the GFDL would be useful as well.  This is something that Mr. Stallman in particular is interested in and will give you some sort of reply on the matter... especially if the website in incomplete from what you have found out.  I've had contact with Mr. Stallman in the past, and he has been very gracious and reasonable in his replies if you are also reasonable with your request.  --Rob Horning 00:15, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Orphan works
I have found a number of web pages that would make worthwhile additions to Programming:Visual Basic Classic but have failed to make contact with the copyright holders. It isn't just that the email isn't answered, sometimes it bounces and even Google fails to turn up a plausible alternative address.

I wonder if anyone has any suggestions about how to track down the copyright holders of such orphan works. It seems to me that there is a lot of material on the web that is effectively unuseable because it has neither an explicit license granting free use nor a live contact who can be asked for permission. Sadly academic sites seem to be frequent offenders in this regard, even where they have an email address specifically noted as the one to use regarding copyright the mail often goes unanswered. --kwhitefoot 21:25, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

 * This is an ugly can of worms that you have just opened up. Prior to the "internationalization" of U.S. copyright (at least in the USA) that occured in the mid 1970's, all copyrighted works in the USA were required to file a formal registration with the U.S. Copyright Office, which is a part of the Library of Congress.  As a part of the registration process, you needed to list the address of the publisher and other contact information, as well as the complete names and nationalities of all authors for the copyrighted work.  This registration still occurs, but now it is voluntary and is seldom done except for items that are widely published or for people that don't mind paying the registration fee to do the formal paperwork.  By registering the copyrighted work now, you gain statutory damages of $175,000 or more for a single copyright violation... that is above and beyond actual damages which can also be included.  That copyright damage award can even be assessed against copyleft documents like Wikipedia (if somebody copies Wikipedia content, for example, without including the GFDL fine print or if they in turn claim copyright on the content).  If the stuff you are trying to locate has been registered, you can contact the Library of Congress and get the publisher contact information.  You may even be able to get that information on-line without having to actually talk to somebody.

 * For internet web pages, you can also try to find the domain registration information. For example, you can go to:

http://www.internic.org/whois.html

 * and look up the whois information about the domain. Try to type in wikipedia.org in the domain area as an example to find who "owns" wikipedia.org.  Back in the "good old days" this information was rather accurate, but the U.S. Dept. of Commerce has totally screwed up the internet and this registration is now close to meaningless.  Still, you might get a clue as to who might have set up the internet domain, and sometimes people are honest when filling out these domain registrations.  These addresses are usually Snail-Mail but also include sometimes e-mail addresses as well.  I have seen addresses on Mars or Alpha Centari, so you can take those sort of addresses with a grain of salt.  Better than having no contact information, however.  By going through internic, you may have to do a domain search on a registrar's server, but internic has the names of the secondary registrars that you have to look up the information with, and generally where to go.  The Whois information is supposed to be free to the public, but sometimes a bit of a pain to get to and some registrars don't exactly make it easy to find the "Whois" button on their web page.

 * The Library of Congress just had a symposium on what to do with orphaned works, and I believe is still seeking written comments about changes to copyright law. This issue is also likely to come before some future session of the U.S. Congress in the near future, so make sure you write to your local congressman if you are an American (or even if you aren't but want to weigh in on the issue.)  Orphan works in particular would not be an issue with the old copyright laws, as a copyright which expires in just 20 years would normally be no big deal.  With the current life+75 years, and no legal way to even know when a given author died unless they are incredibly famous, you can consider the current copyright term to be about 200 years.... basically the works of Thomas Jefferson would still be under copyright if the powers that be had their way.

 * In general, unless you have explicit permission in the form of something like the GFDL or something written by the author in your possession, consider most written works to be under copyright and untouchable for the purposes of Wikibooks. If you havn't guessed, I do have some strong political opinions on this subject.--Rob Horning 23:33, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Quote: 'consider most written works to be under copyright and untouchable for the purposes of Wikibooks'. That's pretty much what I concluded.  The contact problem is generally not that I can't find out who is likely to be the copyright holder but that I can't get them to answer email even when I can be certain that they have received it.  In one instance I even got an autoreply which said that the recipient was off work sick and I still didn't get a real reply.  I just can't believe that most people get so much email that they can't afford the time to write one line saying yes or no.  I think that I'll just have to admit that large chunks of the Visual Basic Classic book just won't ever get written because I'm too lazy to write the introductory stuff and have failed to get permission to copy anything else and haven't been able to persuade anyone else to contribute either.  (Insert your favourite swear word here!) :-( --kwhitefoot 17:06, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Permission Statements
What is the correct procedure when one has obtained permission to incorporate a copyrighted work? Where should that permission be stored? Is there any way of ensuring that the permission is not accidentally or deliberately overwritten or changed? See Programming:Visual Basic Classic/Coding Standards for an example. I placed the permission on the page where the work will eventually be written simply as a placeholder, I want to move it to a more logical place so that it is not in the middle of the actual text, but where? The talk page for that module doesn't seem right to me because modules can be radically changed so that the talk page no longer applies. Neither does the talk page for the main page of the book seem the right place as there is so much else there. Perhaps there should be a specific repository for such things? --kwhitefoot 07:10, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Update: I've added a separate page in the book for such things. --kwhitefoot 10:30, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Non-commercial only distribution of Wikibooks content
There is a part of the LD wikibook (the CAT method in Appendixes) which may only be distributed freely if it is in its entirety and used non-commercially. Do I put the document (which has no official website) in its own page, so that it will be protected from editing? Do I remove the method? Do I replace it with a link to a forum post where he posted it? Do I contact the copyright holder to ask for a more liberal (yes, POV of me) license? r3m0t (cont) (talk) 16:54, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * I'll try to contact you directly on your use page about this issue, but yes, we need to make sure all content added to Wikibooks follows the terms of the GFDL, including the capability of commercial entities redistributing the content. If there is a non-commercial use only clause, such as the CC-by-SA-NC license, or even explicit non-commercial entities only, it is a copyright violation to have that content on Wikibooks.  There are already several commercial mirrors of Wikibooks, and that is legal to do as long as they abide by the terms of the GFDL.  --Rob Horning 17:47, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Changes to content page
This should start with, which would currently display as "Copyright © 2003 – 2024", so that the year automatically gets updated. – Minh Nguyễn (talk, blog) 22:41, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * Changed - Thanks for pointing this out. --Rob Horning 17:47, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Minor thing: Under Use in hard copies (which is under Publication by third parties), number 5.1 says Provide a floopy disk, which should be changed to Provide a floppy disk <IP_ADDRESS> 15:12, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Fixed, thanks. --Derbeth talk 21:03, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikimedia Foundation licensing
I anticipate making a change to the page regarding WMF policy for official trademark and logo licensing agreements consistent with my earlier comments on Foundation-L. I will post the draft langauage here for comment.--BradPatrick 12:01, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * It would be nice to know what is a trademark of the WMF (from the viewpoint of the WMF) as well, as the ™ and ® symbols are currently not being used with much of what I would think are legitimate trademarks of the WMF. BTW, thanks for trying to address this issue. --Rob Horning 12:49, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

 * Great. I presume this will apply across-the-board to all WM-wiki content. pfctdayelise 10:08, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

 * I hope you can eventually do the same regarding licensing of any copyrights held by the WMF. -anon

Interwikis
es:Wikilibros:Copyrights

ja:Wikibooks:著作権 --Wikimi-dhiann (talk) 06:19, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Books under alternative licenses
Currently the project page states:
 * All content is considered to be released under the following terms unless otherwise indicated (for example; a clearly-marked quotation);

I find this a little ambiguous. How prominent does the licensing statement have to be? Is a it enough to put it on the main page or does every page need to have it as well? What about talk pages? Would a link suffice or would the statement actually have to be there? --Swift 03:17, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Some additions
I would like to add text to this policy that indicates the following: These two points both follow directly from the GFDL, although many people have not completely read the text of that license and there is some confusion. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 02:09, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Once a license has been granted to Wikibooks for material, an author may not remove or alter that license (follows from Section 9 of the GFDL).
 * 2) That the page histories count as a byline, and serve as legal attribution under the GFDL. Additional lists of authors are completely optional, are not considered "Invariant sections", and are not binding.

 * Support. I didn't see this before but I do not object to either of these changes. I'm not sure what you mean by a byline, I think we can just call it a "history" since the GFDL counts that as a legitimate attribution as well in the "combinations" section. Mattb112885 (talk) 18:01, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Mixed view - while certainly something that can give credit to contributors, the page histories of MediaWiki does not really give enough information to effectively credit authors. I think it is something that can be worked with and derived from most page histories, but we shouldn't be establishing any legally binding opinions here.  Certainly we shouldn't claim that this is legal attribution.  It is a form of attribution that can be used to help determine who the authors really are, and with some work (quite a bit of work, actually) you can obtain the necessary information for proper legal attribution.  I should note that the "invariant sections" of the GFDL is one of those things that causes huge complications when doing legal interpretations of the GFDL, and is one of the more controversial parts of this license.  I could give some suggestions on how to meet the requirements of section 2(b) of the GFDL (author lists), but randomly grabbing five people from the page history is certainly not sufficient.  --Rob Horning 19:19, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It seems to be sufficient for MediaWiki itself ("copyright (C) 2001-2007 Magnus Manske, Brion Vibber, Lee Daniel Crocker, Tim Starling, Erik Möller, Gabriel Wicke, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason, Niklas Laxström, Domas Mituzas, Rob Church and others"), although that is the GPL. Having said that, full history importing will always be the ideal. GarrettTalk 20:03, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Support, this is in agreement with what has been stated on Wikipedia (heck, there they say that even a backlink may be sufficient). If these methods were legally insufficient I'm sure someone would have brought it up by now. GarrettTalk 20:03, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

 * I've gone ahead and added the first point, since it seems to be supported, but I'm not sure how best to address the second point though in the text. --dark lama  23:53, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Interwiki link to Vietnamese Wikibooks
Please add an interwiki link to the Vietnamese version of this page:

vi:Wikibooks:Quyền tác giả

Thanks.

– Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 01:10, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅ – Mike.lifeguard  | talk 14:15, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Why is this page linking to a rejected policy?
From Copyrights:
 * In some situations you may encounter material on Wikibooks that has been added according to the Fair Use Policy.

From Fair Use Policy:
 * REDIRECT Fair use policy

From Fair use policy:
 * This page documents a rejected Wikibooks policy or guideline proposal that should not be followed.

Why does this policy incorporate by reference a policy that has been rejected? Why does it not link to Media instead? --Damian Yerrick (talk) 19:31, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Probably because someone forgot to update it when WB:MEDIA was made policy instead of this. --dark lama  19:51, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Should Wikibooks also switch to CC-by-SA
In June 2009, Wikipedia switched to CC-by-SA. . I honestly don't really understand all the implications. Should Wikibooks also switch to CC-by-SA? (a) to maintain compatibility with Wikipedia? (b) for the same reasons, whatever they were, that Wikipedia switched? --DavidCary (talk) 20:13, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You seem to have missed that all Wikimedia projects have made that transition, including Wikibooks. — Mike.lifeguard | talk 21:26, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

 * According to the history of the Copyrights page, it never mentioned CC-by-SA until the change of 6 July 2009. I am sorry I "missed that" change. To avoid a repeat of this problem, please tell me -- how can I see events that happen over a week in the future? --DavidCary (talk) 19:58, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

 * Let's all keep level heads here. Mike just assumed you saw the sitenotice before promoting the vote on the change to CC-BY-SA. I think there was also a sitenotice announcing the results of the vote as well. Today I've added a new notice reiterating the change. Hopefully now everyone will be aware of the licensing change. -- Adrignola talk contribs 20:22, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I assumed David had read the link he posted, which explains that all Wikimedia projects were moving to CC-by-sa. — Mike.lifeguard | talk 22:07, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I hope you can understand how my little brain is confused when I hear one thing and see another -- when I hear that "all Wikimedia projects have made that transition", but I see that the edit screen links to Copyrights which had not yet made that transition.
 * Now that we all agree that Wikibooks *has* made that transition, and now that the edit screen links to the new Terms of Use, do we still need the old Copyrights page? Should we make that page merely a redirect to the new terms of use? Or perhaps a subordinate local copy of those terms? --DavidCary (talk) 19:36, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

 * The copyright page has made that transition, if you take a look at the update needed section below. The edit message update reflects what the WMF wanted, so presumably they still see a need for projects to have there own copyright policy. --dark lama  21:33, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Update needed
With the switch to dual licensing between the GFDL and Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License 3.0, this page needs to be updated. -- Adrignola talk contribs 01:53, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

 * I thought that would of been taken care of too when the other things were updated, but I guess not. I used Wikipedia's updated copyright policy to update our own. I think the spirit is still basically the same as before, so it should hopefully not be an issue. I hope it is enough to satisfy any requirements the WMF may have implemented for updating the copyright policy though. --dark lama  11:23, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Update needed: book donations
The " book donations" page currently implies that "All books on Wikibooks must be released under the GFDL." and that using "CC-BY-SA... can be problematic.".

It sounds to me like the "book donations" page was written sometime before Wikibooks switched from GFDL to CC-BY-SA in 2009, and no longer reflects the current situation.

Should I simply delete all the stuff on that page about copyrights and replace it with a link to Copyrights, or would something else be more useful to our readers? --DavidCary (discuss • contribs) 02:03, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Recipes
Greetings, I would like to update Cookbook:Berbere based upon a recipe published in an actual cookbook (some background, if you're interested). My understanding is that a list of ingredients is not protected by copyright (at least, not in the US), although the preparation steps are protected. I don't think it would be too useful to have one without the other, and I'm not sure it's really possible to reword the preparation and still come up with an original work. I've looked at Cookbook_talk:Table_of_Contents/Archive_6 but it seems inconclusive (while Cookbook_talk:Table_of_Contents/Archive_1 suggests an [external site http://everything2.com/index.pl?node=US%20Copyright%20for%20Recipes] for guidance). Another possible issue, unrelated to copyright, is that the source cookbook is in Amharic, not English (on the other hand I've yet to find an English source that is authoritative). Any general tips on importing (or not importing) cookbook recipes into Wikibooks? Thank you, -- Gyrofrog (discuss • contribs) 18:29, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Copyright infringement
As far as I can tell, this edit (from 2006) infringes copyright of Computer Networking: A Top-Down Approach, 5th Edition, by James F. Kurose and Keith W. Ross, ISBN 0-13-607967-9, pp214-215. (Probably an earlier edition was used, as the 5th edition is copyright 2010.) The book is mentioned as a source but the text, in my opinion, infringes and is in any case not properly attributed. Can anyone advise how to proceed? I know what to do on en.wiki, but not here. Thanks! (PS: courtesy note of any reply on en.wiki, my home wiki, appreciated.) Frank (discuss • contribs) 02:42, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

 * If you can clearly identify something that was a copyright violation, please mark it with the copyvio template. This alerts the site administrators there may be a problem and allows other editors on Wikibooks to try to rework or replace that content.  Copyright violations are usually a high priority item for admins to deal with, and rank pretty close to vandalism in terms of how serious it is treated.  That you found something from an edit several years ago is unfortunate, but I'm glad that you caught it.  Hopefully a current admin will see this comment at some time in the near future.  --Rob Horning (discuss • contribs) 13:41, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I've tagged it and will look at it soon. The section has been extensively edited so it may no longer be a copyright violation or it may be a copyvio of a different version of the book (as Frank notes) QU [[User talk:QuiteUnusual|TalkQu] ]|undefined 14:53, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

 * Was this forgotten ? --Panic (discuss • contribs) 06:30, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I can't remember if I forgot! <font color="#E66C2C">QU <font color="#306754">TalkQu 09:51, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

 * I agree with your initial statement (after taking a closer look). One question remains, since the copyrighted content continues to exist in the revision history. Is it possible to redact it from these logs ? If so, then the copyvio is resolved, as the infringement can no longer be considered to be published (available). --Panic (discuss • contribs) 03:28, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. I've deleted all revisions from the history that contain the copyright violation. There are no authors in that history who are not present elsewhere, so there should be no future attribution problem. <font color="#E66C2C">QU <font color="#306754">TalkQu 09:20, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * This probably occurs more than we notice. Frank was capable of detecting it because of the source reference and probably by a sprout of activity. People often use copyrighted source material and rewrite it to not only fit their purposes but remove the rights claim and make the content usable, a similar example is when we use wikipedia's content. There we have more content surviving, but wikipedia's articles most of the time go way beyond the simplest encyclopedic format. --Panic (discuss • contribs) 09:47, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Pls add this interwiki link
ta:விக்கிநூல்கள்:காப்புரிமைகள்
 * ✅ --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 12:07, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Transcribing Audio Books: Fair Use ?

 * does transcribing Audio Books fall under "Fair Use" ?
 * does translating while transcribing Audio Books fall under "Fair Use" ? --Eternal-Entropy (discuss • contribs) 05:06, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

 * Not a lawyer. Having said that the fair use is not limited by medium, that is you have the same freedom of the use of protected content than for instance using of a text.
 * Translation constitutes a derivation of the original work, it is by itself not related to the fair use. I think you may be confusing fair use with something else, fair use is an exception that permits in some instances the use of part of a protected work.
 * See Fair use for a general overview. --Panic (discuss • contribs) 06:19, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I guess transcribing Audio Books in Full in it's language is not Fair Use. Ok, Let me rephrase the other question...
 * Does Wikibooks allow Audio Books that is translated & transcribed by a Wikibooks editor ? --Eternal-Entropy (discuss • contribs) 07:31, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * If the content is right for a textbook and the original is under a license compatible with Wikibooks, yes... --Panic (discuss • contribs) 10:33, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * And this is the key point - the copyright exists in the original material. You can't just convert it into another format to avoid the copyright. For example, a DVD doesn't become free to use because you convert it into an MPEG-4 video. If the original audio book is copyrighted, then you can't transcribe it here. <font color="#E66C2C">QU <font color="#306754">TalkQu 18:54, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks --Eternal-Entropy (discuss • contribs) 19:11, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Compatibility of the ETHZ Oberon license with CC-by-SA.
The Oberon license is at ftp://ftp.ethoberon.ethz.ch/ETHOberon/license.txt. In case it is offline, there is a copy at http://easthope.ca/OberonUsage.html; scroll down a little to see it. According my elementary understanding, the Oberon license is compatible with CC-by-SA. Within Wikibooks, is there a formal process to determine compatibility? Can anyone offer an opinion? Thanks, ... PeterEasthope (discuss • contribs) 15:11, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The only process I know is to ask on w:Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. JackPotte (discuss • contribs) 18:35, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Typo
Change "the GNU Free Documentation License. unversioned, ..." to "the GNU Free Documentation License, unversioned, ...". (This same typo existed on English Wikipedia (and was removed earlier today) and still exists on English Wikispecies currently). --Pokechu22 (discuss • contribs) 18:29, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 18:45, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Update to CC 4.0
The license has been already updated from CC 3.0 to 4.0. Could you please update this page? Thanks. cc SCP-2000 (discuss • contribs) 04:13, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * ✅ Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 06:06, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

title: Wikibooks talk:Copyrights


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United States Air Force squadrons

The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator. — JJMC89  (T·C) 01:46, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

List of United States Air Force squadrons

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.  CASSIOPEIA(talk) 10:50, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  CASSIOPEIA(talk) 10:50, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

 * Delete This is basically the same as List of active United States Air Force aircraft squadrons, except that perhaps this ought to include the reserve and Air Guard units. Further, it seems to be a list of lists. All in all, the aforementioned is much better. If we fixed this, we would more or less have duplicated that one. What say you? --''Paul, in Saudi'' (talk) 05:15, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. How is this remotely the same? This "list of lists" article seems to encompass *all* types of Air Force squadrons, rather than just aviation-related squadrons (which seems to be somewhat out of date comparitively, perhaps?). — Huntster (t @ c) 05:39, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Does the Air Force have Dental Squadrons? If we could list all those oddball units, this article might have some utility I suppose. All in all, I am unhappy with the list of functions (Presidential transport) rather than the units themselves (XXth Airlift Squadron). Did my recent fit of editing help or hurt? --''Paul, in Saudi'' (talk) 06:34, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Interesting enough, it does have dental squadrons, plenty of them. While I haven't checked them all, I would guess that each of the redlinked squadron names contain actual squadrons, many active, some historical. I'm not really sure how I feel about removing all of them, tbh, as redlinking isn't something to be frowned upon, nor does it violate any guideline (that I'm aware of, at least). — Huntster (t @ c) 12:42, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Two completely different lists.  List of USAF squadrons covers types of squadrons.  ex: Air control, Air defense, Intelligence.  The ACTIVE USAF AIRCRAFT squadron is a list of individual squadrons such as "16th Airborne" and "7th Airlift".  I'm wondering if you actually looked at the content of these lists; or just noticed the similarity in article titles.  I noticed that prior to nominating this for deletion that you appeared to gut a large portion of the article first., , and .  I'm wondering if there is a particular line of thinking here that I'm missing. — Ched (talk) 10:54, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Really? Maybe I am the one who is wrong. Take a look. Did I improve or ruin this article with my changes? ''Paul, in Saudi'' (talk) 12:04, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not faulting the removal of red links, but I will note that it is common to have them in articles in hopes of future creation. I won't go so far as to say you ruined the article, and certainly not with malicious intent; still, in you eagerness you've also removed List of United States Air Force fighter squadrons with your edit  here.  You claimed earlier today in your edit summary here, and I quote: OK, here comes the Great Pruning of this. Down to bare bones to rebuild it - and yet here you are 8 hours later putting the article up for deletion.  I hardly consider putting something up for deletion as "rebuilding", so yes, I question both your methods and your intent. — Ched (talk) 12:22, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

 * Note: I've also mentioned this AfD at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history — Ched (talk) 12:28, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I wandered to this article and thought I could make it more like the RAF article. Then, after much chopping I found List of active United States Air Force aircraft squadrons and lost heart. That article seems (to me) to be all this one wants to be. Or not. After a period of comment we can undo what damage I might have done. ''Paul, in Saudi'' (talk) 12:50, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

I surrender I am sure I made a mistake. Thank you all. I would propose one of you repair whatever damage I did and close this discussion. ''Paul, in Saudi'' (talk) 01:24, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep Different list, and it a valid list for linking to so many related articles.  D r e a m Focus  13:09, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. Squadrons of the United States Air Force are highly notable, and a list of them is a useful thing to have. It is surprising to me that this would even be nominated for deletion.  - WPGA2345 -  ☛  15:20, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep Not a duplicate as noted above.  Linked lists of different types of combat squadrons benefit from being combined at a central location.  Support squadrons depend on interest (Paul has deleted a lot of empty lists, but who knows when someone with an interest with fill them out to the extent, for example, that the aerial port and communications lists have been).  Also many of these lists include historical units not currently active (and do not require the maintenance that "list of active USAF Foo Squadrons" would have.)  I would eliminate the Presidential airlift (redirect to 89th Airlift Wing, not a link to a list of squadrons and Air Force demonstration (same to United States Air Force Thunderbirds).  Civil Engineer only contains RED HORSE and PRIME BEEF units, which are listed separately and contains no Civil Engineer, Civil Engineering (1961-1994), or Installations (1948-1961) squadrons.  If the red links create too much clutter, the lists could be divided into sections for operational and support squadrons.
 * Speedy Keep, a very relevant list that serves its purpose and is NOT duplicated by the list suggested. Utopes (talk) 01:15, 24 September 2019 (UTC)


text:
Zahidunnabi Dewan Shamim

Zahidunnabi Dewan (Zahid Dewan Shamim) (born 25 December 1968) is a Bangladeshi physician, biomedical researcher, politician and social worker. He has been working as a scientist at New York School Medicine, USA since 2007. He is conducting research on cancer biology and immunology.

Biography
Zahidunnabi Dewan (Zahid Dewan Shamim) was born on 25 December 1968 to a middle-class Bangali Muslim family in the village of Jamalpur, Gonipur-Bagmara, Rajshahi. His father was A.F. Nurunnabi Dewan and his mother Jahanara Dewan.

He started his early education at village Jamalpur Primary School. He then moved to Dhaka and completed his Secondary and Higher Secondary School Certificate exam and entered in Rajshahi Medical College in 1988. He received his MBBS degree from Rajshahi Medical College in 1995 and PhD in Cancer Biology and Immunology from Tokyo Medical and Dental University, Japan in 2004.

Professional career
After receiving MBBS in 1995, Zahid Dewan Shamim started his career as a Trainee Medical Officer in Rajshahi Medical College Hospital. He started his new job as Emergency Medical Officer at Habiganj District Hospital in 1998. He started working as a scientist at Tokyo Medical and Dental University, Japan after receiving his PhD in 2004. He moved to the United States in 2007 and started work as a scientist at New York University School of Medicine. His research activities are focused on understanding and investigating the role of NF-kappaB transcription pathway and immune cells (especially T and NK cells) in cancer growth and metastasis and viral infection and to develop a novel anticancer and antiviral therapies (both pharmacological and immunotherapy). He has published more than 30 research articles in peer-reviewed international journals. His research works have been cited by more than 2000 research articles published in peer-reviewed journals.

title: Zahidunnabi Dewan Shamim


text:
33 (Battlestar Galactica)

"33" is the first episode of the first season and the pilot episode of the reimagined military science fiction television show Battlestar Galactica, immediately following the events of the 2003 miniseries. "33" follows Galactica and its civilian fleet as they are forced to contend with constant Cylon pursuit for days without sleep; they are forced to ultimately destroy one of their own ships to foil the Cylons and earn their first respite of the series.

The episode was written by series creator Ronald D. Moore, and the television directoral debut of Michael Rymer. Moore and executive producer David Eick made the decision to slot this episode as the first of the season because of its potential impact on the audience. "33" distinguished the themes of the new Battlestar Galactica series by following characters on the spaceships, on the planets that were fled, and in the minds of other characters. Attention to detail was prevalent in this first episode; the production team, the editing team, and even the actors themselves strove for authenticity of specific portrayals and moments.

Though there were compromises made due to concerns of the episode being too dark for audiences, the episode was lauded by both cast and crew in addition to winning the 2005 Hugo Award for Best Dramatic Presentation, Short Form. "33" originally aired on Sky One in the United Kingdom on October 18, 2004, and subsequently aired on the Sci Fi Channel in the United States on January 14, 2005, alongside the following episode "Water".

Plot
Having fled the besieged Ragnar Anchorage, the convoy of refugee spaceships is relentlessly pursued and attacked by Cylons. The colonial fleet must execute a faster-than-light (FTL) jump every 33 minutes to escape the Cylons, who consistently arrive at the new jump coordinates approximately 33 minutes later. After over 130 hours and 237 jumps, the fleet's crew and passengers, particularly those aboard Galactica, have been operating without sleep while facing the strain of nearly constant military action.

Upon the 238th consecutive jump, Olympic Carrier (a commercial passenger vessel with 1,345 souls aboard) is left behind and the attacks unexpectedly cease, allowing some respite. When the vessel arrives three hours later, President Laura Roslin and Commander Adama order Capt. Lee "Apollo" Adama and Lt. Kara "Starbuck" Thrace to destroy it, believing that it has been infiltrated by Cylons and now poses a threat to the fleet's safety. The colonial pilots destroy Olympic Carrier while the rest of the colonial fleet jumps away. Baltar's internal Number Six explains to him that God is looking after his interests, implying that a scientist aboard Olympic Carrier was preparing to reveal Baltar's unwitting collusion with the Cylon attack on the colonies.

After the fleet's last jump, the Cylons do not return, and the president's survivor whiteboard aboard Colonial One, the result of a fleetwide census, is updated with one additional soul (to 47,973) after the birth of the fleet's first child—a boy.

Meanwhile, on Caprica, Lt. Karl "Helo" Agathon is captured by a Cylon patrol and then "rescued" from his Cylon captors by a Number Eight in the guise of his crewmate Sharon "Boomer" Valerii, who shoots a Number Six to free him.

Writing
While preparing for production of Battlestar Galactica's first season, writer and series creator Ronald D. Moore wrote a short list of potential storylines, one of which was "the fleet jumps every 33 minutes; because the Cylons are relentlessly pursuing them, the crew gets no sleep." Conferring with fellow executive producer David Eick, the two decided that this story would be "the best way to kick off the season". Moore described writing "33" as a great experience; he wrote the whole script without a story outline or much structure, because he was excited to begin the first episode of the first season already "at the end of the road". Moore wrote the episode over his Christmas break before the series was officially picked up, and he later said that this aspect was what made the episode "one of the more fun projects that [he] wrote all of the first season."

David Eick called the episode a "standalone concept" that did not require having seen the miniseries to understand it. Because the miniseries ended "at a very happy place", starting the series in the middle of a crisis without explanation, and showing the audience that "actually, while you—the audience—were away, really bad things have been happening" made for a much more intriguing and interesting story. The complex storyline of "33" was a harbinger for episodes to come, and laid the groundwork with the network and audiences alike.

Moore explained on his blog that the number 33 had no hidden meaning or significance, it was just sufficiently long to allow minor functions like snacking, showering, or napping, but was too short to allow anybody to gain any meaningful sleep and recharge their batteries. Further, Moore intentionally gave the number no meaning to avoid including unnecessary technobabble into a drama-driven episode.

Production
"33" was director Michael Rymer's first television episode. He accepted the job without reading the script, saying that based on his writing experience, "33" went well beyond his expectations and excited him. Bear McCreary originally composed the musical theme "Boomer Theme" for this episode; it was later expanded for use with the Athena character, before becoming the de facto "Hera Theme" for the character Hera Agathon in the fourth season episode, "Islanded in a Stream of Stars". Joel Ransom was the director of photography for the miniseries, but when Eick learned he was unavailable for the series, he turned to Stephen McNutt, with whom he had worked on American Gothic. In the interim, McNutt had moved on to shooting in high-definition video; this was fortuitous for the production team because, while Ransom had filmed the miniseries on 35 mm film, the production team was switching to high-definition video for the series.

Executive producer David Eick opined that "33" was the "silver bullet" that ultimately tipped the scales in their favor and convinced the Sci Fi Channel to pick up the series. The network's biggest concern in picking up the series was that Battlestar Galactica would fall victim to the same trappings of space opera as other television properties (Star Trek, Andromeda, Stargate). Two aspects that assuaged these concerns were specifically discussed in the episode's DVD commentary. First, "33" went into Gaius Baltar's (James Callis) mind and visited his house on Caprica (shot in Lions Bay, British Columbia); being swept away by the blue skies and beaches in his fantasy was not the sort of imagery expected of space opera-type shows. Second was going back to the devastated Caprica and following-up with Helo's (Tahmoh Penikett) story.

As sleep deprivation was a major plot point of the episode, actor Edward James Olmos (William Adama) liaised with an expert on the subject and the crew to best depict the actual effects realistically. Following up, director Michael Rymer gave each main cast member a specific symptom to emphasize to avoid repetition on screen. To aid a realistic portrayal, Olmos and several other cast members took their study a step further by restricting their sleep patterns to about three hours a night.

In the episode's DVD commentary, Moore and Rymer related how there were endless discussion about the clocks to feature in this episode. Concerns over digital versus analog, size and shape, the ratio of digital to analog clocks, whether they should run forwards or backwards, and whether any labels should be stenciled or hand-drawn were all brought up. David Eick also noted that as of the commentary's recording, the clock at Felix Gaeta's (Juliani) station still had its "33" label affixed.

Editing
The first cut of "33" was ten minutes too long. Despite this, the production crew took extra care not to eliminate "human moments" in their efforts to trim the episode. These included a shot of Galen Tyrol (Douglas) and Cally Henderson (Clyne) walking across Galactica hangar bay, a shot of Crewman Socinus (Oyarzun) giving a bedraggled look over the shoulder of another crewmember, and a shot of PO2 Dualla (McClure) walking through Galactica remembrance corridor.

In a question-and-answer session, Moore revealed a scene written for, but cut from, the episode. In the cut scene, the recurring prop in the characters' briefing room was to have been explicitly introduced and explained; the prop remained in the series, but its backstory was cut.

"There was a scene cut from '33' where we saw Laura being given her copy of the photo along with a card that said it was taken on the roof of the capitol building on Aerilon during the attack. The photo was inspired by the famous shot of the fire-fighters raising the flag at Ground Zero that became iconic. I thought the Colonies would have their own version of this—a snapshot taken in the moment that becomes a symbol of the day they can never forget and of all they had lost. The photo itself is of a soldier falling to his knees (possibly shot or simply overcome by emotion) as he stands on the rooftop over looking the devastation of his city, while the Colonial flag waves at the edge of frame. The inscription below the photo on Laura's plaque reads, 'Lest We Forget' in itself a reference to the inscription on the watch presented to John Wayne's character in She Wore a Yellow Ribbon."

Other cut scenes included one shot in the pilots' head, showing the pilots "wrecked and exhausted [...] with an exchange between Starbuck and Apollo", as well as several shots of Commander Adama (Olmos) gagging and vomiting because of acid reflux brought on by sleep deprivation. A line of Olmos'—an ad-lib about suicides in the fleet—was cut so as not to alienate audiences by being "too dark".

As originally written and shot, when Apollo (Jamie Bamber) fires on Olympic Carrier, it was made clear that he sees people inside. Moore wrote the scene to be strong and clear that the characters were making the decision to fire on the passenger liner in full awareness of the consequences to illustrate and emphasize "the uncompromising nature of the show." This was an "enormous fight" between Moore and the network, with the latter feeling this was another scene that was "too dark" and had the potential to turn away audiences; the network further implied that if the scene were left intact, they may have been compelled to air the episodes out of order. To placate the network, Moore and Eick changed the ending of the episode and "cheated". Instead, when Apollo flies by other ship, it is unclear whether or not there is anybody inside. In a "small act of defiance", visual effects supervisor Gary Hutzel snuck in small, indeterminate movement behind one or two of Olympic Carrier windows on behalf of the production and writing teams. The episode also originally ended with Helo's escape from the Cylons on Caprica; again tasked by the network to keep the episode from being "too dark", Moore wrote in an additional scene—President Roslin (Mary McDonnell) learning of the newborn—upon which to end the episode with a hopeful note.

Release and reception
"33" first aired in the United Kingdom on October 18, 2004, and in the United States on January 14, 2005, almost three months later. UK viewers obliged US Battlestar Galactica fans by illegally copying the episode—via BitTorrent—within hours of its Sky One airing. , "33" has been released thrice on home video as part of the first season collected sets; on July 26, 2005 as a Best Buy exclusive, again on September 20, 2005, and finally as an HD DVD set on December 4, 2007. The episode was also released on July 28, 2009 as part of the entire series' home video set on both DVD and Blu-ray.

Both series creator Ronald D. Moore and star Jamie Bamber (Lee Adama) claim "33" as their favorite episode. Bamber described it as "...the perfect episode of Battlestar Galactica." Emphasizing the dark, gritty, and nightmarish aspects of the episode, the actor felt it was a microcosm of the series as a whole. In interviews with Wired UK and the Los Angeles Times, Moore opined that the episode subverted viewers' expectations and was a "fantastic way to open that first year."

"33" won the 2005 Hugo Award for Best Dramatic Presentation, Short Form, and drew a 2.6 household Nielsen rating, attracting 3.1 million viewers and making it the number-two program on cable (8pm–11pm). At the website Television Without Pity, the staff review rated the episode an "A+", while 546 of their readers awarded it an average grade of "B". The New York Post's "10 Most Dramatic Moments of the '00s" included "33" in its #10 spot, describing it as the premiere episode of "a sci-fi show with high stakes and serious guts."

title: 33 (Battlestar Galactica)