Talk:Internets

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)

Internet2, despite the name, is not an internet, as its article explains. I've removed the quoted sentence. JRM · Talk 21:39, 5 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

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)

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

"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)Reply

I really do not understand the point of this section. "Internets" was clearly either a slip of the tounge, or a misunderstanding of how the word is supposed to be used. Given the past record of Bush's public speaking snafus, those explanations are far more probable then assuming he was referring to smaller networks of computers, an explanation I hardly buy and I work in IT. Quite frankly, this whole section is spin, bending over backwards to apologize for Bush, and obviously has a point of view. Besides, even the most ardent Bush supporter would admit that he is not the best public speaker.

If he were smart enough to understand the situation he would have known to say "there are rumors" or "there is a rumor" rather than "there's rumors"

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)Reply

See, for example, IETF RFC1129 (Internet Time Synchronization: The Network Time Protocol) for a plain statement on the difference between “the Internet” and “internet”. It is an evident fact that capitalization cannot be heard; no one should have to source that point. —12.72.71.166 03:16, 21 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

• That's true about it not being heard but what does that have to do with the section in question? I mean, the "alternative interpretation" being discussed is about the "internets" as a plural, not as a capital. And it gives a pretty detailed and non-ovious alternative interpretation of the use of plural - one that is not siply common knowledge. I couldn't ask anyone off the street to spout this off for me, so it needs sourcing or it's original ideas. Miltopia 04:16, 21 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

The noun “internet” doesn't refer to a unique network, it is as pluralizable as “network”. The test for material needing sources is not whether a person grabbed off the streets carries the datum, otherwise we'd have to source things such as the location of Idaho. —12.72.71.16606:06, 21 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

• Ok, I see what you mean about the capitalization, but it's still needs sourcing to avoid being your own original research. Where did you hear this from in the first place? Miltopia 04:18, 21 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

1. I'm not the first to make the point here; that was someone else.
2. The “original research” policy covers novel ideas, not points of ordinary grammar and obvious differences between what may be written and spoken.
3. In future, when you believe that something needs a source, please use the “{{fact}}” tag.

—12.72.71.166 06:06, 21 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

BTW, symmetrically, we could not possibly source as fact that he said “Internets” as opposed to “internets”. One way or another we are stuck with the fact that there are two possibilities here. —12.72.71.166 02:19, 22 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Re: recent edits by User:SlamDiego. My guess is that this user believe the article violates NPOV by the fact that it points out a grammatical mistake on the part of the President. The catch phrase "the Internets" is only a catch phrase to begin with--i.e., it only caught traction with Internet communities, with political commentators, etc., because the President's pluralization of the word "Internet" was an oddity. SlamDiego's edit to call it an "apparent exchange" is only confusing; was the printed exchange the exchange or wasn't it? Robert K S 03:44, 23 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

I have plainly stated my reasoning, and it is grotesque for you to “guess” that instead I really don't think that the article should point out a gaffe made by Bush. The original exchange was audio. As explained in the discussion immediately above, we cannot hear whether Bush said “Internets” or “internets”; nor could whoever transcribed the exchange. The transcription does not note the ambiguity, so it is of the apparent exchange, not of the known exchange. We are not ethically permitted to reduce confusion by lying or by willfully over-simplifying. —SlamDiego 03:59, 23 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

In fact, the official transcription notes the oddity of the President's pluralization with a "(sic)". Would you not agree that the cited reference must trump guessing with regard to the fidelity of the transcript? Do you know for a fact that the transcript wasn't vetted by representatives of both candidates, as are so many aspects of the debate process? If it were, in fact, to be shown that the transcript was vetted, would the argument be concluded? Robert K S 04:15, 23 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

The cited reference is guessing, and what I'm demanding is that the article not itself guess. (Reporting possibilities is not the same thing as making a guess of any one of them.) The argument would be concluded if the transciption were vetted by Bush, otherwise we are still talking about a guess. Given that Bush had somewhere got into the habit of seeing the Internet as internets, it would remain most probable that his representative would not know that there is a proper plural “internets”.

(And if the transciption were vetted by Bush, then the whole Alternate/Historical section should then just be deleted as irrelevant.) —SlamDiego 04:35, 23 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

If I may offer, you are guessing that the cited official transcript (not article) is guessing. The position I offer is citable, the position you offer is not, and that is the crux of the problem. I will attempt to reword the language of the section that introduces the quotation in a way that I hope you will find acceptable, as I would like to achieve consensus on this article. Robert K S 05:03, 23 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

You are stating things exactly backwards. I can cite that “internets” is homophonic to “Internets”, whereäs you do not have a citation that demonstrates that he said the latter rather than the former. (A citation that did this would be of a confession by Bush.) I will be please if you can manage now to rewrite the article so that it does not misrepresent conjecture as fact. —SlamDiego 05:28, 23 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

By use of the "(sic)", the official transcript shows, explicitly, that Bush's use of "Internets" was improper. Until it can be cited otherwise, modifying the article to suggest that the usage was proper and the catch phrase evolved from a misinterpretation of a proper use as an improper use, or that there is ambiguity on the matter, introduces POV. Robert K S 06:16, 23 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

The “(sic)” in the official transcript shows only that the transcriber(s) heard a pluralization, not that they heard a capitalization, because a capitalization could not be heard. And because a capitalization cannot be heard, the only thing that could demonstrate that he said “Internets” rather than “internets” would be a confession by Bush. The notion that Bush is plainly guilty until proved innocent is raw POV. —SlamDiego 08:23, 23 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Re: "Second, I most often see the colloquialism as “internets”. Googling cetainly finds many instances of this." I see what you're saying here. But Google usage isn't reason enough for "Internet" to be restyled "internet" on Wikipedia (see the talk page for that article for lots more on this topic), and isn't it useful to keep "Internets" and "internets" distinct in the article to distinguish the catch phrase (the topic of the article) from the legitimate use? Robert K S 06:40, 23 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

We're talking about a word represented principally as a colloquialism rather than as a catch-phrase. I agree that confusion can result; but, after all, the d_mn'd thing originates in someone's confusion, so it's unsurprising that confusion continues to obtain. —SlamDiego 08:23, 23 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

While (etymologically speaking) "homophone" means "same sound," in linguistic and common usage, homophones are words that sound the same but have different meanings, origins, and spellings. "Homophonic" is clearly the wrong term to describe the relationship between "internet" and "Internet." Robert K S 05:03, 23 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Nonsense:

You need to be more careful all around. —SlamDiego 05:15, 23 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

You say "nonsense", but then you repeat my explanation of the etymological meaning of "homophone" without addressing my point that the linguistic meaning is quite different. According to homophone,

And according to Merriam-Webster (m-w.com), a homophone is

In this argument and the one above, I'm not sure why you have chosen to take a personal tone ("Geez!", "Nonsense", "You need to be more careful"). I'm willing to be patient and talk through disagreements to reach consensus. Robert K S 05:28, 23 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

First, I did not repeat your explanation of the etymology. (Go on, try to find the clause or sentence where I did.) Rather, you are so lost in a false presumption about etymology that you go so far as to read it between my lines. You keep citing defintions of a word that I did not use, rather than of a word that I used. The word “homophonic” is not derived from the modern word “homophone”, but from “ωμοφωνικ-” (which in turn comes from their common ancestor “ωμοφων-”). The AHD offers exactly and only one other definition of “homophonic” from that which I gave above, and that other is a definition peculiar to music. Again: You need to be more careful. Further, it is inappropriate for you to complain that my tone is personal after you have repeatedly conjectured or baldly stated false claims about my motives and about what I have actually written.

Also, you clobbered-up discussion format here by using a template improperly. Please avoid using it further until you have experimented with it in a sandbox. —SlamDiego 05:54, 23 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

I give you permission to edit my above comment to unclobber my clobbering-up. I have made no claims with regard to your motives. If "homophonic" is not understood to be used as the adjectival form of "homophone" (in the linguistic/common rather than the literal/etymological sense), isn't it still a strange choice? Is the homophony of "Internet" and "internet" (i.e., that the words sound the same) unapparent so as to require remarking? Robert K S 06:07, 23 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

• I don't want to wade through your mark-up to fix it.
• Here is a previous remark from you about my motives

• In-so-far as you and others have blithely assumed that the transcriber could tell that Bush had said “Internets” rather than “internets”, yes, I'd say that a remark on the homophony was quite useful.

—SlamDiego 06:27, 23 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Not to get caught up in semantics, but I was guessing at your intention (which was unclear to me) and not your motivation (which is unknowable to me). Robert K S 07:02, 23 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

The previous time when you got caught-up in semantics, you proved to be simply wrong. You should cut your losses. One cannot decouple objectives from incentives, and there is no way to write or talk meaningfully about intention without saying significant things about motivation. Indeed there are limits on what one can no of the motivations of others, but there are also limits on what one may know of their intentions, and the limits map from one to the other. —SlamDiego 07:43, 23 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

This discussion has turned philosophical and should be pursued off-thread. Robert K S 09:43, 23 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

isn't this more accurately a malapropism, than a colloquialism? at least in its origin? --lquilter 14:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)SammyJamesReply

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)Reply

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Internets_%28colloquialism%29&diff=96078049&oldid=96063946

Two YTMND URLs were added as references in this edit, and are still there today - or they would be, except that they were put in as "hyperlink blacklisted". I'm not sure why; I thought WP:CENSOR was meant to stop this sort of thing. I'll note that I haven't yet seen the URLs, but I would assume that if they're that bad then they shouldn't be linked at all. Mostly I'm just curious as to what it's about, since it's the only place in Wikipedia that I've found this. Any ideas? --70.85.16.87 14:04, 22 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

• Whoops, this was me logged out. Gah. --Ciaran H 14:05, 22 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

I originally added the links as citations demonstrating the "Internet humor meme" significance of "Internets". However,

1. apparently Wikipedia auto-blacklists YTMND URLs, apparently as the result of some prior instance of YTMND linking on Wikipedia for non-legitimate purposes, requiring that a little jiggery-pokery be employed to get them to display, and
2. apparently one or both of the referenced YTMND URLs is no longer operative.

Even so, the links should be retained in the article as references. Just because a link is (currently) dead does not diminish its value as a citation, for several reasons:

1. the link may one day be restored;
2. the link may be cached somewhere, such as the Internet Archive or in the cache of a search engine;
3. the link's existence shows that the link was at one time a suitable resource. (This is the reason for the "accessdate" field in the {{cite}} templates.)

Hope this helps explaining the links. Robert K S 07:42, 5 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

Anecdotal story--I remember my late aunt coming over to my parents' house, circa 1994, shortly after we first had AOL in the house. She asked about something and I remarked that I could look it up on the Internet, and her response was "oh, you have an Internet now?"

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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'). [1]

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)Reply

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)Reply

Bush used the term "internets" yet again in 2007:

"Information is moving -- you know, nightly news is one way, of course, but it's also moving through the blogosphere and through the Internets." --George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., May 2, 2007[2]

Just figured I'd bring that up for possible inclusion in the article. It is entirely relevant, don't you think?

-Alan 24.184.184.130 (talk) 02:28, November 21 2008 (UTC)

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)Reply

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)Reply

...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)

And, in fact after looking at it a bit longer, I was so inclined. M0thr4 (talk) 10:41, 7 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

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)

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)Reply

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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:24, 25 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

  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 Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 November 11 § The Internets until a consensus is reached. 1234qwer1234qwer4 15:43, 11 November 2023 (UTC)Reply