Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 07:16, 24 February 2011

Template:Archive box collapsible

15 January 2025
From the editors: Looking back, looking forward Traffic report: The most viewed articles of 2024 In the media: Will you be targeted? Technology report: New Calculator template brings interactivity at last Essay: Meet the Canadian who holds the longest editing streak on Misplaced Pages Opinion: Reflections one score hence News and notes: It's a new dawn, it's a new day, it's a new life for me... and I'm feeling free Serendipity: What we've left behind, and where we want to go next Op-ed: Elon Musk and the right on Misplaced Pages In focus: Twenty years of The Signpost: What did it take? Arbitration report: Analyzing commonalities of some contentious topics Humour: How to make friends on Misplaced Pages
Single page Front page About Subscribe Suggestions Archives

January 2011

Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion pages. Doing so won't stop the discussion from taking place. You are, however, welcome to comment about the proposed deletion on the appropriate page. Thank you. SchuminWeb (Talk) 14:51, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Skylon

I had a go the changes are minor. The best way to do it in my opinion is to aquire the UK English dictionary for your Word Processor, OpenOffice is free. Then block copy the text in check it and then back.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 18:26, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hi Terra Novus. Good work on the RESkylon page. I've left a comment for you over there. Cheers. N2e (talk) 18:36, 25 January 2011 (UTC) N2e (talk) 18:36, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Israel/Palestine articles

Three months ago, in an ANI thread where there was considerable momentum for a block or community ban, I wrote (see top of right-hand column in diff):

I don't intend the least disrespect, and I regret having to ask, but can you stick around and limit yourself to non-controversial articles (nothing remotely related to politics, religion, climate change and environment, etc.) and adhere to the suggestions others have made above re use of talk pages, etc.?

You agreed, writing, in part:

I totally agree to editing non-controversial subjects, and will do my best to stick to that area. I would just ask that whenever I slip (as I obviously have in these instances) that editors will take me to the task civilly, and assist me in finding more productive paths for my contributions. Please put a note on my talk page whenever you have some friendly advice ...

I'd like to politely do so now: I see from your contribution history for January 26th & 27th that you just jumped into editing related to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. You may not be aware that the I/P articles are probably the most hotly-contested and controversial articles on Misplaced Pages; they generate a great deal of "traffic" at ANI. ( One admin I respect described political articles on Misplaced Pages as "thorny nests of woe", and that's especially true of the I/P articles. ) If this was a one-time thing, I'll not object, but if your intention is to rescind that promise then may I ask that you make that intention explicit? Thanks,  – OhioStandard (talk) 08:26, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Since I prefer to keep discussions on the page where they were begin, I've copied the reply you posted to my talk page here, immediately below.  – OhioStandard (talk) 09:08, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the warning. I was merely fixing a few referencing issues on that article, and since it was not clearly attached to my topic ban, I think my edits were uncontroversial. If I get reverted or into an edit war in that topic I will be sure to back off.-- Novus Orator 08:30, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't referring to any externally-imposed topic ban, I was referring to the offer you made at ANI in order to avoid a block or ban: I totally agree to editing non-controversial subjects, and will do my best to stick to that area. (emphasis in the original) Your reply and your recent edit history lead me to believe that you no longer intend to uphold that promise. Is that correct, or am I missing something?  – OhioStandard (talk) 09:08, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I do intend to uphold my promise. I was merely pointing out that this particular article has not had a contentious atmosphere while I have been editing it. If I begin to see that the situation becomes conflictive I will stop editing that article. Generally speaking, I agree that many articles in this topic area are contentious, and I thank you for warning me to be careful. The topic ban I'm referring to is one applied to me by the arbitration board that covers a different topic area than politics (Creationism and Psuedoscience).--  Novus  Orator 

I wasn't "warning you to be careful", I was asking whether you planned to continue editing controversial articles, contrary to your explicit and unequivocal promise at ANI to avoid them in response to the threat of sanctions. I think you've made your intentions quite clear, however, so I'll leave off this thread.  – OhioStandard (talk) 10:03, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Since I prefer to keep discussions on the page where they were begin, I've copied the reply you posted to my talk page here.  – OhioStandard (talk) 11:16, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

My answer in one word is No. I do not intend to edit controversial articles. If you think my intentions are contrary to that notion, please explain.-- Novus Orator 10:07, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps I misunderstood. You seemed to be implying that an I/P article like One-state solution shouldn't be encompassed by the promise you made to avoid controversial subjects because it "has not had a contentious atmosphere while I have been editing it", as you said. And I also thought you were saying that you didn't intend to avoid controversial subjects, but only intended to make what you believe are non-controversial edits, and to refrain from edit-warring. Both of these seem to me to be contrary to, "I totally agree to editing non-controversial subjects, and will do my best to stick to that area." But I'll be the first to admit that I can't read minds, so let's make this simpler: Based on your last statement my current understanding is that you do not intend to continue editing articles in the area of politics, religion, or other subject areas that can reasonably be called controversial. If I'm mistaken, then please clarify. Thanks,  – OhioStandard (talk) 11:16, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you are correct. My analysis of this specific situation tells me that I made a mistake in editing this article, because it involved a contentious subject which I had not fully thought over. In compliance with my former promise, I will cease from editing that article now that I understand this rationale, with the hope that the other editors involved will do their best to improve its editing environment. Please feel free to comment on any of my behavior which you view as questionable, and I will welcome your input.--  Novus  Orator  11:25, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for making this clear. Respectfully,  – OhioStandard (talk) 11:37, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

And yet, here we are again. To Criticism of the Israeli government, you added a "see also" wikilink to our article about the logical fallacy named straw man. I think it was C.S. Lewis who said that he'd rather play cards with someone who didn't cheat at cards than with someone who was just morally earnest about not cheating at cards. Likewise, I'd rather you kept your promise to recuse yourself from editing controversial articles than, every time it's pointed out to you that you've violated it, just saying you shouldn't have done it. How many "slips", as you call them, does this latest edit bring the total to? The number is high enough that, for me, I'm finding it next to impossible to go on assuming that you intend to keep this promise, especially with this latest edit coming so soon after we just completed (as I thought) the above discussion, and in just the same exact topic area.

You need to revert your edit, and to keep your promise, going forward, without it being necessary for other editors to keep constant watch to make sure that you do. Your ban from controversial topics is, as you've rightly observed, self-imposed, at present. Please don't waste any more of your fellow editors' time by requiring us to go through a whole new round of sturm und drang at ANI to make it formal. I'm sure your fellow editors are very, very tired by now of seeing your actions bring you there, and I doubt you much care for the experience, either. I'm not going to take this latest "slip" to ANI, but even one more breach of your promise, large or small, and you'll leave me no alternative. Reply if you like, but I don't see any point in repeating the civil "oops, I did it again" language you've used so many times in the past. Just as you wish, of course, but any more of that kind of response isn't going to make the least impression on me: I've heard it far too many times before.  – OhioStandard (talk) 09:39, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I see you haven't been online. Another editor evidently noticed your "straw man" edit, and reverted it.  – OhioStandard (talk) 20:13, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I have two notices on my talk page, one in normal mode and one that comes up in edit mode, that indicate my preference that a discussion be kept on the page where it began, to preserve the continuity of the thread. I'd appreciate it if you'd adhere to that, and would stop posting replies to this thread on my talk page. Once again, I've copied the message you posted to my talk page here, below.  – OhioStandard (talk) 07:59, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I not understand how the straw man edit was related to the issue about the One state solution. Is there a problem with me editing in this whole topic? I think our misunderstanding is rooted in the fact that you thought I am banned from editing the whole Israel-Palestinian topic. I will do my best to shy away from specific articles that do seem to be in a contentious editing pattern, but I think that you were assuming I would move away from the whole topic altogether. I am happy to do so, if you communicate in a way that convinces me that I am somehow not editing constructively on this topic. I have ceased from editing the One state solution per your request, and I welcome any comments you might have in regards to this issue.--  Novus  Orator  02:52, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

There's nothing remotely ambiguous or hard to understand about the offer you made to avoid sanctions previously, and I'll not go round and round with you while you pretend there is. I quote:

"I totally agree to editing non-controversial subjects, and will do my best to stick to that area ... I will generally try to avoid Climate change articles, and any subject in which editors are known to (or say that they have) widely differing opinions."

The only words I'm interested in hearing from you are, "I agree to abide by the promise I made." Nothing else: no additions, no qualifications, modifications, or hedges, no arguing, no more temporizing, and no more debate. Say that, keep to it, and we're done. Say anything else and we'll be back at ANI to see whether admins will formalize and enforce the offer and promise you made to avoid a block or ban last time.  – OhioStandard (talk) 08:37, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Okay...I will abide by promise I made. As to the ban, its already in place for other topic areas, and I certainly do not want to see it expanded. Cheers!--  Novus  Orator  08:50, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

The affect of the informal agreement you made re what you edit will have to be just as if it had been formally expanded; it just won't be recorded in the logs, is all. That, and reaffirming your agreement here saves both you and the community the strife of another round at ANI, and circumvents the possibility that instead of just formalizing and recording what you previously agreed to, the community might elect to block or ban you entirely. I'll have nothing more to say about this, but be advised that I will not issue another warning before posting to ANI if I see you disregard what you've promised.  – OhioStandard (talk) 09:40, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

The Downlink: Issue 2

The Downlink
Your source for news on WikiProject Spaceflight	Issue 2, February 2011
Project News · News from Orbit · Article News · The Charts · Yuri Gagarin Project News A report on popular pages from December 2010 revealed surprising trends in readers' interests. Boeing X-37 was the most popular article within the project's scope, with SpaceX Dragon in second with Global Positioning System in third place. The top seven articles were all assessed as C-class, with the remainder of the top ten being Good Articles. It was noted with some concern that moon landing conspiracy theories was more popular than moon landing. A discussion regarding whether missiles warranted inclusion within the project scope was conducted, and resulted in the continued inclusion of missiles. The last remaining articles tagged with the banner of the former Human Spaceflight WikiProject were re-tagged with the WikiProject Spaceflight banner. The last banner was removed on 8 January, and the template has since been deleted. The project is thankful to ChiZeroOne for his work in this field. Concerns were raised that the new article reporting system was not working correctly, however it was noted that there is sometimes a delay before articles appear on the list. Discussion regarding the existence of the separate spaceflight and space exploration category structures led to a mass CfD being filed on 10 January to abolish the space exploration categories, merging them into their counterparts in the spaceflight category structure. This was successful, and the exploration categories have been removed. Several other categorisation issues remain unresolved. A proposal was made to standardise some of the infoboxes used by the project, the future of Template:Infobox spacecraft (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) was discussed, and design work began on a replacement. Template:Rocket specifications-all (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) was nominated for deletion and subsequently kept due to extant substitutions, however it was noted that the template had been deprecated by WikiProject Rocketry. Concerns were also raised that the existing infoboxes were not well-equipped to handle spacecraft which operated in more than one orbit, or whose orbits changed over the course of their missions (which in practise is most of them). Five members of the project gave interviews for the Misplaced Pages Signpost, and a report on the project, authored by SMasters (talk · contribs), is expected to be published in the 7 February edition of the Signpost. It is hoped that this will raise interest in and awareness of the project. News from orbit Four orbital launches were conducted in January, beginning on 20 January with the launch of Elektro-L No.1 on the first Zenit-3F rocket. This was followed later the same day by the launch of a Delta IV Heavy with the USA-224 reconnaissance satellite. The articles for USA-224 and the Zenit-3F rocket could use some expansion, whilst the Elektro-L No.1 satellite needs its own article. On 22 January, an H-IIB launched the second H-II Transfer Vehicle, Kounotori 2, to resupply the International Space Station. It arrived at the station on 27 January. Less than a day after its arrival, another cargo mission was launched to the station; Progress M-09M departed Baikonur early in the morning of 28 January, docking on 30 January. In addition to payloads to resupply the station, the Progress spacecraft is carrying a small subsatellite, Kedr, which will be deployed in February. Kedr does not currently have an article. Progress M-08M departed on 24 January to make the Pirs module available for Progress M-09M, and has since reentered the atmosphere. Its article needs to be updated to reflect the successful completion of its mission. The NanoSail-D2 satellite, which failed to deploy from FASTSAT in December, unexpectedly separated from its parent craft and began operations on 18 January, with its solar sail deploying on 21 January. Nine orbital launches are scheduled to occur in February, beginning with the launch of the first Geo-IK-2 satellite; Geo-IK-2 No.11, atop a Rokot/Briz-KM, on the first day of the month. Articles need to be written for the Geo-IK-2 series of satellites, as well as for Geo-IK-2 No.11 itself, and the Briz-KM upper stage that will be used to insert it into orbit. A Minotaur I rocket will launch NRO L-66, a classified payload for the US National Reconnaissance Office, on 5 February. The payload has not yet been identified, however once more details are known, it will need an article. Iran is expected to launch the Rasad 1 and Fajr 1 satellites in February, with 14 February the reported launch date. The satellites will fly aboard a single rocket; either the first Simorgh or the third Safir. Once this launch occurs, the satellites will need articles, and the article on their carrier rocket will require updating. The second Automated Transfer Vehicle, Johannes Kepler, is scheduled to launch on 15 February to resupply the ISS. Docking is expected to occur on 23 February. 23 February will also see the much-delayed launch of Glory atop a Taurus-XL 3110 rocket. This will be the first Taurus launch since the launch failure in early 2009 which resulted in the loss of the Orbiting Carbon Observatory. In addition to Glory, three CubeSats will be deployed; KySat-1, Hermes and Explorer-1 . KySat and Hermes require articles, whilst the article on Explorer-1 needs to be updated. On 24 February, a Soyuz-2.1b/Fregat rocket will launch the first Glonass-K1 satellite; Glonass-K1 No.11. Articles are needed for the series of spacecraft, as well as for the specific satellite being launched. It is likely that a Kosmos designation will be given to the payload when it reaches orbit. In the evening of 24 February, Space Shuttle Discovery will begin its final mission, STS-133, carrying the Permanent Multipurpose Module, a conversion of the Leonardo MPLM, to the ISS. Other payloads include an ExPRESS Logistics Carrier, and the Robonaut2 experimental robot. The first manned mission of 2011, Discovery's six-man crew will transfer equipment to the station, and two EVAs will be performed. The launch has already been scrubbed five times, before Discovery was rolled back to the Vehicle Assembly Building to inspect and repair cracks on its External Tank. At some point in February, a Long March 3B rocket is expected to launch two navigation satellites; Compass-M2 and Compass-M3, as part of the Compass navigation system. The date of this launch is currently unknown. Both satellites will require articles once more information is available. A PSLV launch, carrying the Resourcesat-2, X-Sat and YouthSat spacecraft, is expected to launch from the Satish Dhawan Space Centre towards the end of the month, probably between 20 and 23 February. Stop press: The Rokot launch was conducted at 14:00 UTC on 1 February, and at the time of writing it appears to have ended in failure, due to a suspected upper stage malfunction. The spacecraft is in orbit, it is not clear at the time of writing whether it will be salvageable. Article news Reaction Engines Skylon is currently undergoing peer review, its discussion page can be found at Misplaced Pages:Peer review/Reaction Engines Skylon/archive1. A user requested feedback on major changes which had been made to the article, however at the time of writing no responses have been offered. Following up on the issues covered in the last issue, the requested move of Missile Range Instrumentation Ship to Tracking ship was successful, with the article being renamed. The discussion concerning types of launch and landing resulted in a proposal to merge VTVL into VTOL, however this has been met with some opposition. Several other options have been suggested on Talk:VTVL. The large scale deletion of mis-tagged Soviet images on Commons went ahead, with most of the useful ones having already been backed-up locally under fair use criteria. Discussion was held regarding the naming of spaceflight-related articles. Concerns were raised regarding inconsistency in article titles and disambiguators. A project guideline was adopted to standardise titles, with the parenthesised disambiguators "(satellite)" and "(spacecraft)" being adopted as standards for spacecraft, and the exclusion of manufacturers' names from article titles was recommended. Issues regarding Japanese spacecraft with two names, the correct names for early Apollo missions, and dealing with acronyms and abbreviated names remain unresolved. A large number of articles were moved to conform to the standard disambiguation pattern. In addition, several Requested Moves were debated. A proposal to move SpaceX Dragon to Dragon (spacecraft), which began prior to the adoption of the standardised disambiguators, was successful. Atmospheric reentry was subject to two requested moves, firstly one which would have seen it renamed spacecraft atmospheric reentry, which was unsuccessful, however a second proposal shortly afterwards saw it moved to atmospheric entry. A proposal currently under discussion could see Lunar rover (Apollo) renamed Lunar Roving Vehicle Questions surrounding the transliteration of Russian names resurfaced, with a proposal to rename Vladimir Chelomey to Vladimir Chelomei being closed with no consensus, and a proposal to rename Yury Usachov to Yuri Usachev ongoing. Several long-standing merger proposals were closed. A proposal to merge Venera 15 and Venera 16 into Venera 15 and 16 was closed as no consensus, with the combined page being moved to Venera 4V-2 to reduce the overlap in the articles' scopes. Returnable satellite was merged into Fanhui Shi Weixing. Experimental Assembly of Structures in EVA and Assembly Concept for Construction of Erectable Space Structures was nominated for Good Article reassessment due to concerns over the article's quality. Doubts were also expressed over the thoroughness of the original review conducted upon its nomination for GA status. It was also suggested that the article's title may not be the most common name for the experiment, and that it might be necessary to move the page. Concerns were also raised regarding whether Space Interferometry Mission was up-to-date, however these are being addressed. Mission: Earth, Voyage to the Home Planet looks likely to be promoted to GA status. Help was requested for adding citations to List of Mir spacewalks. A request was made that STS-88 be reviewed against the B class criteria, and suggestions for improvements made. Another user requested improvements to the article Yuri Gagarin, with a view to having the article promoted to featured status in time for the fiftieth anniversary of his Vostok 1 mission. As a result of this request, Yuri Gagarin is this month's selected article. Questions were raised as to whether an article or category should be created to cover derelict satellites. The categorisation of spacecraft by the type of rocket used to place them into orbit was also suggested. In another categorisation issue, it was questioned whether Space law should fall under space or spaceflight. Stop press: Mission: Earth, Voyage to the Home Planet has now been promoted to GA status. The Charts There is no editorial this month as no content was submitted for one. Instead, we present the "top ten" most popular articles within the project, based on the number of page views in January. Space Shuttle Challenger disaster was the most popular article of the last month, up fourteen places from 15 in December. Space Shuttle Challenger was the highest climber in the top 40, up 42 places from 50. December's most popular article. Boeing X-37, dropped 57 places to 58. On a happier note further down the chart, moon landing is now ahead of moon landing conspiracy theories. № Article Movement 1 Space Shuttle Challenger disaster ↑14 (15) 2 Richard Branson ↑5 (7) 3 Neil Armstrong ↑2 (5) 4 Space Shuttle Columbia disaster ↑16 (20) 5 Global Positioning System ↓2 (3) 6 Apollo 11 ↑2 (8) 7 Satellite ↑4 (11) 8 Space Shuttle Challenger ↑42 (50) 9 Apollo 13 ↓3 (6) 10 NASA ↓1 (9) For the full list of the top 1,500 popular pages within the project, see Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Spaceflight/Popular pages (or the archived record for January). Selected Article: Yuri Gagarin Yuri Gagarin was the first man to fly in space, aboard Vostok 1 in April 1961. He was subsequently awarded the title Hero of the Soviet Union, and was training for a second flight at the time of his death in 1968. His article describes him and his spaceflight experience: “ Yuri Alekseyevich Gagarin (Russian: Ю́рий Алексе́евич Гага́рин, Russian pronunciation: ; 9 March 1934 – 27 March 1968), Hero of the Soviet Union, was a Soviet cosmonaut who on 12 April 1961 became the first human to journey into outer space. On 12 April 1961, Gagarin became the first man to travel into space, launching to orbit aboard the Vostok 3KA-3 (Vostok 1). His call sign in this flight was Kedr (Cedar; Russian: Кедр). During his flight, Gagarin famously whistled the tune "The Motherland Hears, The Motherland Knows" (Russian: "Родина слышит, Родина знает"). The first two lines of the song are: "The Motherland hears, the Motherland knows/Where her son flies in the sky". This patriotic song was written by Dmitri Shostakovich in 1951 (opus 86), with words by Yevgeniy Dolmatovsky. ” The article is currently assessed as C class, and had been assessed as B class prior to the criteria being redefined. Although a full reassessment has not yet been made, it seems close to the B class criteria, however details on his spaceflight experiences are somewhat lacking. It has been requested that the article be developed to Featured status by April, in time for the fiftieth anniversary of his mission. Published by WikiProject Spaceflight, if you have any content you wish to include in future newsletters, please contribute

You have recieved this newsletter because you are currently listed as a member of WikiProject Spaceflight, or because you are not a member but have requested it. If you do not wish to receive future issues, please add your name to the opt-out list.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Spaceflight at 00:22, 2 February 2011 (UTC).

Hey

Hello!

I fear it will be difficult to keep the Austrian School page free from the vandalism of BigHex and LK. They are ideologically invested in deleting as much austrian material from WP as possible and discredit all that is left. Misessus (talk) 19:01, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi Terra. I've warned both Misessus and BigK against edit warring, as did another editor, and Missessus for referring to the good-faith contributions of other editors as "vandalism" merely because s/he disapproves of BigK's take on the issues. I notice you've been very active on the Austrian School article, as well, although I haven't taken the trouble to examine the content of your contributions there. I did want to just take a moment, though, to mention that both editors are running the risk of a block for their behavior over their dispute, and to suggest that you might consider steering clear of the fray. Best,  – OhioStandard (talk) 23:14, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Discussion of your Recent Topic Ban Violation at ANI

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 20:08, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Skylon PR

You are most welcome. And thank you for the unexpected barnstar. It's nice to be appreciated. Finetooth (talk) 17:21, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar!

		The Space Enthusiast's Barnstar
		For your fine development of Reaction Engines Skylon. Your work is much appreciated!  – OhioStandard (talk) 14:53, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

File:T-95.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:T-95.jpg, has been listed at Misplaced Pages:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 19:24, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Discussion of Federal Reserve System

I think the main question is: Is it a government owned bank or not? If it is not owned by the government it is private, end of story. I came here looking for closure on that question and it was not here.Wolfenstein (talk) 03:02, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

As explained in the article, and in archives, over and over, "it" is not "a bank." So, "it" cannot be a "government owned bank" or a "privately owned bank."

"It" is the Federal Reserve System. Properly speaking, it's the central banking SYSTEM of the United States, not the central "bank." There are two parts of the system consisting of banks, and other parts of the system consisting of government agencies.

1. The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System is not a "bank." It's a government agency.

2. The Federal Open Market Committee is not a "bank." It's a government agency.

3. The 12 Federal Reserve Banks are not "a bank." They are TWELVE banks.

4. Wells Fargo Bank is "a bank." And it's a "member bank" in the Federal Reserve System. It's one of many "member banks." It is "privately owned."

All these things are PARTS of the Federal Reserve System. Item 1 is not the System. Item 2 is not the System. Item 3 is not the System. Item 4 is not the System. The System is THE WHOLE THING.

Earth is not the Solar System. Mars is not the Solar System. The Sun is not the Solar System. These are only PARTS of the Solar System.

No offense intended, but the question of whether the Federal Reserve System is a "government owed bank" or a "privately owned bank" is a MEANINGLESS QUESTION. The System is not "a bank" to begin with. Only the "bank parts of it" are "banks."

Unfortunately, even people at the Fed will sometimes refer to the Fed as the "central bank." That just causes more confusion.

I have seen people raise this question about whether the Fed is "government owned" or "privately owned" here in Misplaced Pages over and over and over and over again since I began editing here in late 2005. No matter how clearly the article is written, we will probably never stop getting these kinds of questions. There is something about the subject itself that generates these questions. Famspear (talk) 05:36, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

The confusion also arises from the bloat and inefficiency that comes from this bureaucracy created on Jekyll Island by some of the most powerful (and corrupt) financiers in history. The reality is complex-As the Federal Reserve is largely influenced by the most powerful (e.g. the big five banks), those who it is supposed to serve equally end up losing out. It all stems from the fact that a Central Banking system can never conduct a rational empirical analysis that effectively predicts and models a economy's behavior. The government's only role in the economy should be enforcing contracts and protecting private property. Whenever the government tries to take over an inherently irrational process like a market (instead of protecting the rights of the individual to choose for themselves) the consumer ends up losing out. Though this subject is interesting, I am reminded of WP:Not a forum, so I must differ to my talk page if anyone wants to discuss this further...--  Novus  Orator  05:55, 24 February 2011 (UTC)