Talk:Internets

message: I would advocate the deletion of this article, put a one/two sentence mention in the article for Internets" - this isn't that interesting or informative. 128.101.208.95 (talk) 02:03, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But do we need an entry for both "Internets" and "Internets (colloquialism)"? I say remove this one and put the info at Internets. - TalkHard 05:11, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: I originally suggested deletion.  I'd never heard the term used in any online forum or otherwise, and just assumed it was a slander of the President (which you must concede is a reasonable assumption on WP).  Apparently I was mistaken.  Not that I don't believe you all, but could someone post a url (from google groups or wherever) of a discussion in which this term comes up?  I'm interested now.  Also, please sign your posts like TalkHard. --WayneMokane 07:37, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  It is used all the time on The Vestibule. Mga 30 June 2005 21:41 (UTC)
Here's some:
*http://www.wilwheaton.net/mt/archives/001811.php#001811
*http://developers.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/12/18/0139249&tid=217&tid=156
*http://boards.ign.com/The_Vestibule/b5296/98060855/?9
(feel free to add more) Charles 22:20, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

message: :While Bush may have misspoken, there are, in fact, two Internets – the Internet and Internet2.
There are in fact lots and lots of internets. They're just not often called internets anymore since the rise of the Internet.
::Sounds like you're actually talking about inTRAnets, not "internets".                     ~Rayvn  21:12, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vahn Internet, two Internets... 

message: Think about it: is George Bush capable of understanding the difference between 'the' internet and Internet2?
:If he's decently computer literate, then that's a possible yes.  Bush actually graduated from Harvard.                     ~Rayvn  21:16, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure what thinking about it might accomplish, or what you're driving at.  The fact is that Internet2 is not an internet. As it's article clearly states, it is a "non-profit consortium."  It seems to me like you are driving at something else in your edit which isn't coming across clearly.  Perhaps if you fully explained in the talk page what you're attempting to add to the article it would help boil it down to a concise but still accurate sentence. Charles (Kznf) 20:44, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  One Internet, Two Internets 

message: I agree that the reference to Internet2 is completely superfluous to the article and have deleted it again.
Even if Internet2 was the name of the Abeline network, it is only a small research network largely
irrelevant outside of academia.
"internets" was used a long time ago as a non-specific reference to connected TCP/IP networks but specifically
not THE Internet.  It is unlikely that Bush was intending to use this obsolete historical syntax and even then it would have been inappropriate given the context of the modern Internet (which rumors are spread on).
From a footnote on page 2, chapter 1 of "Internetworking with TCP/IP Volume I, Principles, Protocols and Architecture" Douglas E. Comer Second Edition 1991:
      We will follow the usual convention of capitalizing Internet when referring specifically to the
      connected internet, and use lower case otherwise; we will also assume the term "internet" used without
      further qualification refers to TCP/IP internets.
SolarWind 23:36, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  One Internet, Two Internets 

message: I could have sworn that Cheney also said "internets" during the Cheney-Edwards debate, when directing people to factcheck.com.   It's not in the transcript though---what's up with that?  24.63.211.131 03:48, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cheney too? 

message: "While the term is popularily understood to be a Bushism, it is possible Bush's word choice was accurate, if he meant to refer to the Internet2 as well as the Internet proper, or TCP/IP internets [1] in general." <--I don't think that's accurate. To say that he could be referring to both would require (in the context) them both to be networks, whereas internet2 is an organization (the name of that network is abilene) see Internet2. Also, that note is non existant, there's no evidence to sustain that claim. Anyone have any objections to me changing this? Lunarctic 11:36, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticism

message: I removed the "alternative interpretation", few people like Bush as much as I do and almost no one enjoys this colloquialism as much as I do, but this is a stretch.  Diff link.  It seemed like original research to me, a pretty strong claim with no source.  Also very unlikely.  Miltopia 14:32, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of paragraph 

message: Bush's use of “the Google” is plainly a slip-up.  I don't see a need to label it as such, but I also don't object to labelling it as such.  However, to call it a similar slip-up to that in his earlier remarks is to say that his earlier remarks had a slip-up.  That is just sneaking in the back door a claim that he said “the Internets” rather than “the internets”.  Since no one can tell what he said, it is POV rather than NPOV to make that insinuation. —SlamDiego 06:40, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The entire raison d'être of the catchphrase and this article is that "Internets" was a slip on Bush's part, as explictly noted in the cited official transcript.  The best you've been able to do is contest the transcript's fidelity, but you've provided no citation.  If Bush really said "the internets", then the bit about "the Google" has no relevance, and moreover, neither does this article. Robert K S 06:48, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, the entire raison d'être of the catchphrase was an apparent slip on Bush's part, which may or may not have been an actual slip.  Again, the transcript was made by someone listening, who probably didn't know about the word “internet”, and who couldn't have distinguished it by sound from “Internet”.  If Bush really said “the internets”, then there is still an apparent slip, a resulting catchphrase, and some analogy to “the Google” which, as an actual slip, would also be an apparent slip.  Be logical and stop POVing. —SlamDiego 07:35, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have rewritten the article.  The new version obviates your concerns.  Information about "the Google" will be merged into the Bushisms article. Robert K S 09:48, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  “the Google” 

message: isn't this more accurately a malapropism, than a colloquialism? at least in its origin? --lquilter 14:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Possibly.  I originally created the article and vacillated between neologism and colloquialism, neither of which seemed perfect. Malapropism wasn't (until about 3 minutes ago) a familiar enough concept for it to occur to me.  It's not exactly ideal either though.  My main point is that I don't have a strong defense of the use of colloquialism. Charles (Kznf) 18:07, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: colloq / malap

message: Does anyone else remember seeing rumorsontheinternets.com (or maybe theresrumorsontheinternets.com?)?  It appeared only a day or two after the debate, and consisted entirely of the brief clip of Bush saying "there's rumors on the Internets" repeating endlessly.  Definitely one of the more sureal bits of 2004 election ephemera.  Does it merit a mention in the article, perhaps? --Jfruh (talk) 23:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I remember the clip, which was virally distributed.  I don't remember which domain I saw it at, but that very well may have been it. Robert K S 10:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  rumorsontheinternets.com 

message: The first paragraph had several sentences that were just way too long and wordy. I tried to cut them down to size a bit, by breaking them up into smaller sentences. If anyone wants to further condense and combine the text, go ahead. I'm done with it.
SammyJames 17:16, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I reverted it, since it introduced a non-sequitur, but don't let my revert discourage you from continuing to try different things with it, since it could definitely use improvement. Robert K S 18:06, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Had to edit paragraph 1 -- the sentences were too long. 

message: Why does the text here not replicate the official transcript? The text has added the word "uh" and the article notes that the transcript does not have it. That seems backwards. If the addition of "uh" is truly critical to our understanding of the word "internets", it seems to me the text of the official transcript should be given, with a note that this addition word was also said and not recorded. Gimmetrow 21:12, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The text does not replicate the official transcript because the official transcript omits filler words.  In this case, the inclusion of the filler word is not superfluous, as filler words may indicate hesitation, however brief, on the part of the speaker.  Many Bushisms follow unnatural pauses in Bush's oration; one interpretation may be that Bushisms are more likely to happen when Bush departs from his scripted remarks and begins to speak extemporaneously.  While the article need not cover such an interpretation (particularly when it is unsourced), reproducing the flow of the remarks as accurately as possible should be the aim of the quotation.  The lack of the filler word in the transcript has been properly noted in the note below the quote and the filler word's existence is easily referenced by video of the quote, which is linked to from the article. Robert K S 07:27, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The, uh, internets 

message: Can anybody find Gore's response to Bush's malaprop? Why didn't Gore, as the inventor of the darn thing, club him silly after that one? JDG 15:45, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gore response 

message: As we can see from “‘Childrens do learn,’ Bush tells school kids”, offical transcripts are limited proof of anything:
:“As yesterday's positive report card shows, childrens do learn when standards are high and results are measured,” he said.
:[…]
:The White House opted to clean up Bush's diction in the official transcript.
Now, again, no one could hear whether Bush said “internets” or “Internets”, so this article needs to be made encyclopædic by not claiming somethign as a bald fact which is only a guess. —12.72.72.98 08:28, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Official Transcripts v. Discernible Realities 

message: I propose that we use the word "Internets" in this article when describing the internet.  For example, in the "internet and media reaction" section, I propose that the first line which reads "in the Ridicule, and later parody, of Bush's uncommon pluralization spread quickly on the Internet" should use "Internets" instead of "Internet". Anybody else like this idea? Chris01720 (talk) 04:53, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Not that this really warrants a response, but no, I don't like the idea of people vandalizing this article. Charles (Kznf) (talk) 03:41, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Using "Internets" in the article 

message: I removed the following paragraph:
:The fact that the Internet is an interconnected collection of networks – and therefore Internets is arguably a more correct term – was lost in much of the media coverage, but was reported in at least one account (though, it being a single collection, the singular is still considered 'proper'). 
Because 1) it's not good style to resolve a dispute by having the article contradict itself, and 2) The youtube video used as a "reference" for this information does not actually address either of these claims. The closest it comes is mentioning that since Internet2 exists, there is technically more than one Internet. But that's not what either of the contradictory claims in the paragraph say. -- Tyler (talk) 12:43, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of paragraph with claim about media 

message: when you open about:Internets in Chrome browser you can see how it works :-)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.47.111.102 (talk) 13:07, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Google Chrome browser 

message: Contrary to what happened three years prior, this usage was met with far less hype and parody.
I'm reluctant to change this, because it may be perfectly legitimate American English, but it reads oddly to my Irish ears. I would say three years previously. Using prior as an adverb seems strange to me.
Incidentally, why is this edit box messed up in Opera? TRiG (talk) 10:28, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems odd to my English ears too.  I looked it up in the New Oxford American Dictionary (the one that ships with OS X) and it's only listed as an adjective +or a noun if you're talking about monks), so unless someone can give evidence that this is correct idiomatic American English, I'd be inclined to change it. M0thr4 (talk) 10:37, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: ...Oxford English Dictionary??  You must be British.  Since this article is FOR GOD KNOWS WHAT REASON about Bush, it should be written in American English, not British.  If it's still threre, I'm changing it back to not look like it's from someone who doesn't quite 100% get how to talk normally.                     ~Rayvn  21:01, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

text:  And, in fact after looking at it a bit longer, I was so inclined. M0thr4 (talk) 10:41, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prior: American English? 

message: Why is there absolutely no mention of the actual meaning (modern)  of the word "internets", used to distinguish the WWW of People Who Know Stuff, such as 4Chan users and OG Netzians, from People Who Think Everything's Normal, such as recipe seekers, AOL users, and people who look up computer programming information on Official Windows Forums?                     ~Rayvn  21:00, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  I'm 100 years old and wat is this? 

message: No doubt in an effort to appease right-wing critics, this article points out that Obama once said "Internets." But there's a big, big difference between Obama's verbal slip and Bush's 2000 and 2004 screwups. After uttering "Internets," Obama quickly corrected his mistake within the same sentence.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.169.153.151 (talk) 11:47, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Obama's "Internets" verbal slip 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Internets. 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/20080324163814/http://www.comedycentral.com/colbertreport/videos.jhtml?videoId=164481 to http://www.comedycentral.com/colbertreport/videos.jhtml?videoId=164481
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071218224146/http://redjar.org/jared/blog/archives/category/internets/ to http://redjar.org/jared/blog/archives/category/internets/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:24, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Since IPv4-only hosts can't directly communicate with IPv6-only hosts, doesn't that mean we actually have 2 Internets now? 2001:470:1F15:397:5005:F5DF:9819:1051 (talk) 19:07, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say no, because the physical connectivity is generally the same, and the accessible content tends to be the same either way. —Kenyon (t·c) 04:04, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[IPv4]] and [[IPv6]] 

message: The redirect The Internets has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached.  1234qwer1234qwer4 15:43, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "[[:The Internets]]" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]