text:
Talk:Dodo

Dodo multiple award winning short story, addition reverted
Under Cultural significance I added the below about a multiple award winning short story about the dodo. But it was reverted as "This is not a notable appearance."

Opinions, please? Worthy? Should I have added "In Popular Culture", and add it there?

I understand Howard Waldrop may not be in the same league as with Hilaire Belloc and Lewis Carroll, but their works are mentioned under Cultural significance.

"The Ugly Chickens" by Howard Waldrop starts with a casual conversation. A woman comments upon seeing a picture of a dodo how a neighbor kept this bird on his Mississippi farm when she was a little girl in the late 1920s. "The Ugly Chickens" won the Nebula Award for best novelette in 1980, and the World Fantasy Award for Short Fiction in 1981, and was printed in the annual years best of for both awards.
 * What does this tell about the cultural significance of the dodo which isn't already stated? See WP:Trivia. It is just one of hundreds of references to dodo in world literature, nothing particularly significant about it. If we wanted to mention every single cultural appearance of a dodo, it would easily fill up an entire article. FunkMonk (talk) 22:28, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * How has "The Ugly Chickens" affect the public's perception of the dodo? Has it had a long-lasting affect?--Mr Fink (talk) 22:44, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Truth, it's only a short story about what did become of the dodo in America. There are many references, but how many short stories solely about the dodo? And I admit, no long lasting effect. Actually I went to to wiki to look for the author. And at the end of the fascinating entry, not finding the author (Howard Waldrop who has his own wiki) I thought to add for anyone curious. I thank you both for commenting, and has knowing about this award winning short story made either of your curious to read it? KenJacowitz (talk) 01:27, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, nothing wrong with the story, but when you have an example of a literary appearance like Alice in Wonderland, any other addition pales in comparison. That book has helped shape the public perception of the dodo. FunkMonk (talk) 08:30, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

"The Ugly Chicken" is an EXTREMELY FAMOUS story, having won the Nebula and World Fantasy Awards, and been included in the annual Year's Best as previously stated. People who read and love SF and fantasy (which includes Alice-lovers!) are well-acquainted with it. To say that it's "not a notable appearance" is false. 2604:2000:F64D:FC00:59B8:559:F394:6F8B (talk) 23:45, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
 * What has it meant for the image of the dodo itself? That is what we should be concerned with. FunkMonk (talk) 05:18, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Citation style consistency
I have asked (see talk page discussion for details) to change the citation style back to what I used originally when writing this, since it is now a hodgepodge of two styles. The problem is that the style had been changed by another editor (who did not write text or ask about changing the style first) by the time the article passed FAC, so it would be best to gain a consensus first before changing it back. The style I propose is that used in Broad-billed parrot and most of the other articles I've nominated for FAC, which is now used for the citations under "Footnotes" in the dodo article. Pinging the original FAC commentators, if they are still here:, , , , , , , ,. FunkMonk (talk) 16:38, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Fine with me Jimfbleak - talk to me?  06:14, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

 * Hi, you may want to look at the above. The plan has been for a while to get this changed back to "regular" citation style. FunkMonk (talk) 20:16, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

More info wanted
1. the Portuguese referred to them as "fotilicaios" at the time. Is “them” penguins or dodos?
 * Penguins (the point is that the name could not refer to penguins if the Portuguese didn't even use that word for penguins). FunkMonk (talk) 15:19, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

2. The article says (implies) no ships from 1513 to 1598. Why not? The writer in 1634 claimed a Portuguese name from 1507; that’s a big gap til the (first) reference in 1598.
 * I guess the islands had little interest for people at the time, but the sources don't go into this (that is more about the history of Mauritius itself than the bird). FunkMonk (talk) 15:19, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

3. The article doesn’t pin down the evolution; are there ancestor fossils (earlier species) on Mauritius? Diverged from the pigeon c1 million years ago? Became flightless… when?
 * None of this is known. But as the article states, Mascarene birds might have evolved elsewhere before reaching the islands. FunkMonk (talk) 15:19, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

4. Diet. Any worms? What did that beak evolve for?
 * Theories about the diet and function of the beak are discussed in the behaviour and diet sections. FunkMonk (talk) 15:19, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

MBG02 (talk) 22:45, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I missed this section,, left some answers above. FunkMonk (talk) 15:19, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Nifty. Thanks. My theory on no.2 is records were lost in Portugal in 1755 earthquake. And sailors probably didn’t write much then. Or maybe Portuguese (and Dutch) mostly stuck to the coast for the first 100 years. (Theories, plural). MBG02 (talk) 02:45, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
 * History of Mauritius gives an outline of the early history, and explains why the islands were ignored (there were better ways to get to India, which was their main reason to be in the area). FunkMonk (talk) 03:08, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Dodo Re-Discovered??
Should I point out that there has been recent sighting of the so called 'extinct' Dodo bird? I remember watching a video of a baby Dodo bird in 2017 or 2016. Does anyone else think the Dodo is NOT extinct??? A lot of animals were thought extinct, but were not. FlatEarth7 (talk) 22:59, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Do you still have the video link? And if possible, provide more evidence of this than a YouTube video. I'm pretty skeptical about this though especially considering this is by someone named FlatEarth7 . dibbydib 💬/✏ 23:05, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

No, I do not have the link. I will look for evidence though. FlatEarth7 (talk) 23:11, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Do you have evidence for a flat earth too? FunkMonk (talk) 23:14, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Dodo Bird
The first mention of Dodo was not by Dutch sailors, but in fact by Portuguese sailors. The first vessel found land after weeks lost at sea without food and fresh water. They send the crew to find provisions, and what they found was a big bird that unlike any other, wasn't afraid of humans. The Portuguese sailors were so amazed by the behaviour of the animal that started to call them, Doidos. Crazy birds. They weren't afraid of humans, and so they kill some of them to take aboard, but the taste of the meat was so terrible that no one could eat them, so they had to find another food source. After that first encounter the boat returned to Portugal, and soon other expedition was sent to the new found land, to explore and report back. In that time the Dutch, didn't set sail to discover new territories, They just follow the vessels, either Portuguese, Spanish or English, to steal the route and take what ever they could find. And thats how the Dutch found the island and killed every Doido. They couldn't pronounce the name correctly in Portuguese so they called it dodo. You have to imagine, that in that time, an island in the middle of nothing, was like an outpost. A source of food, fresh water and maintenance before continuing the journey searching for new worlds. Unfortunately but true, some countries, like the Netherlands, stoled every chart, every route to a new land. They always sail behind other vessels, to take advantage of other countries discovery. If someone wants to give credit to the Netherlands for being the first to discover Doidos Bird, at least tell the story right. They stole the coordinates, went to the island and kill every Doido. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.132.215.59 (talk) 23:34, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 May 2020 - Typo Fix
"manoeuvrable" appears to be misspelled. Suggested correction: "maneuverable" 47.215.136.209 (talk) 15:37, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Per notice at the top of this talk page the article is in British English, where "manoeuvrable" is the proper spelling. — KuyaBriBri Talk 15:49, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

WP:URFA/2020 notes

 * CiteRef errors (you can install this script to detect them):

 * Hakluyt, Richard (2004). The Principal Navigations, Voyages, Traffiques, and Discoveries of The English Nation, Volume 10, Asia Part III. The Project Gutenberg EBook. Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation. The anchor is named CITEREFHakluyt2004.
 * Mauritius-Holidays-Discovery.Com. "Mauritius Natural History Museum, Port Louis". Retrieved 8 November 2014. Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation. The anchor is named CITEREFMauritius-Holidays-Discovery.Com.
 * Mourer-Chauviré, C. C.; Bour, R.; Ribes, S. (February 1995). "Was the solitaire of Réunion an ibis?". Nature. 373 (6515): 568. Bibcode:1995Natur.373..568M. doi:10.1038/373568a0. S2CID 4304082. Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation. The anchor is named CITEREFMourer-ChauviréBourRibes1995.
 * Owen, R. (January 1867). "On the Osteology of the Dodo (Didus ineptus, Linn.)". The Transactions of the Zoological Society of London. 6 (2): 49–85. doi:10.1111/j.1096-3642.1867.tb00571.x. Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation. The anchor is named CITEREFOwen1867.
 * You can install this script to keep endashes in order.

What a fine labor of love! Sandy Georgia (Talk)  01:45, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I actually wanted to convert the citation style back to the original one I used (as discussed here), but I don't know how to do it in an easy way... And it seems many of the citations may have been messed up when others have thought they were improving them... FunkMonk (talk) 02:08, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * DrKay is the citation guru and he is always willing to help ;) Sandy Georgia (Talk)  02:38, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Ok, I'll send him a note one of these days... FunkMonk (talk) 03:01, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

I think I figured out from what I found and fixed at Woolly mammoth that the issue here is that these sources are no longer used in the article, so moving them here to talk: Sandy Georgia (Talk)  19:42, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'll see if I can put them back... FunkMonk (talk) 21:23, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I hate that harv ref business, but am slowly learning. Unwatch now, Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  21:41, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, which is also why I want this changed back to the style I regularly use... That was also done to Rodrigues solitaire a while back (after it was changed without bringing it up on the talk page first). FunkMonk (talk) 21:51, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Pop Culture
I'm new to this. For a pop culture part: The Dodo has made quite an appearance on the internet, often being made fun of for its odd appearance. Many movies and video games such as Ark: Survival Evolved(2015) have featured Dodo birds, promoting the symbol in pop culture. 216.21.162.16 (talk) 19:12, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, we shouldn't just list every pop culture appearance or reference to dodos, but cover those that have had wide cultural significance. FunkMonk (talk) 20:09, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 April 2021 - Link Fix
The illustration which is credited to "Walter Paget", the Australian politician, should be credited to "Walter Paget (illustrator)". 67.231.66.125 (talk) 02:30, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Well-spotted, fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 13:12, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

The link to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pneumatics would be more useful if it pointed to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skeletal_pneumaticity, seeing as the paragraph refers to skeletal pneumaticity and not industrial pneumatics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.103.143.236 (talk) 20:38, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * A little late, but done. FunkMonk (talk) 12:35, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 February 2023
Change “he did not mention if it were” to “he did not mention if it was” in the section “dodos transported abroad”. It should not be subjunctive as it is neither a conditional nor a result clause. 194.75.12.108 (talk) 10:30, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ – small jars 12:16, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Unknown rationale for when citations are placed in "Sources" section
Are items placed in sources if they are notable or is there some other intended purpose for not leaving them unsorted in the references section? Any responses would be appreciated. J JMesserly (talk) 09:06, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I originally used the more regular, unsorted style as it's easier when I wrote the article, but someone changed it to the sorted style without asking, and then it became too hard to reverse. So if anyone can convert the citations to the original style, as was done at Rodrigues solitaire (discussion:), that would be helpful. FunkMonk (talk) 09:10, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
 * If there is no objection after a few weeks for comment have passed, or some other style is agreed to, I would be happy to perform the work bringing it into the agreed on consistent style. J JMesserly (talk) 09:24, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
 * That would be appreciated, there were no objections to it before because it was the original citation style, as can be seen in the GA version: FunkMonk (talk) 09:51, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
 * This appears non controversial and I see now was already discussed earlier, so I am placing the respective banner notice above (to view, show Other talk page banners). If I got anything wrong in the wording in the template, or there are other issues or questions, please comment. Otherwise I will clean up the citations using this rule in the coming days.  Subsections "Citations" and "Sources" will be removed and all non inline full citations will be moved back inline as was the case in the original citation style. J JMesserly (talk) 05:08, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Sounds good! FunkMonk (talk) 11:45, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Dodo de-extinction
You know how Colossal Biosciences is planning to de-extinct the dodo? Well, can someone edit the article to mention this? FreezingTNT2 (talk) 00:12, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
 * It's not really of much significance, at this stage they're just seeking funding for it, and it'll take many years to approach even the possibility of doing it, if it ever even happens (what will lay this supposed dodo egg?). Likewise, folks have been talking about cloning mammoths for well over 20 years, and we haven't really gotten much closer. No reason at all to mention it before it is tangibly closer to the goal, now it's just science fiction. FunkMonk (talk) 12:38, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
 * The De-extinction article has an inbound link and describes it vaguely. There are open source research papers describing the process envisioned.  The basic idea is that you introduce the dodo dna to the closest dna relative, the Nicobar pigeon.  You get a dodo-nicobar chick, then you iterate- moving the offspring closer and closer to the original dodo dna.  Pretty dangerous tech if applied to human beings by autocratic governments, and I have no interest in communicating such information to a broad public.  J JMesserly (talk) 19:18, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
 * And considering the size of the Nicobar pigeon in relation to the dodo (it's barely larger than a regular street pigeon), I'm not sure how it developing such a potentially large egg would even be feasible... Again, it's barely even science fiction yet, and they are just making bold claims to get funding. FunkMonk (talk) 19:26, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
 * FunkMonk & Hemiauchenia -- your handwaving notwithstanding, this is a serious project that is being recognized by serious science outlets such as MIT Technology Review, Scientific American, Smithsonian and the Audubon Society (scroll down to where the article talks about "PGCs"). There have been dozens of other mentions of this project in legitimate media outlets, which amply justifies a section on the goal of "de-extincting" the dodo. Bricology (talk) 10:21, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
 * There have been tonnes of such speculative suggestions the last twenty years. The woolly mammoth should have been revived twenty times by now. Until there are any kinds of results, it should be relegated to the article about the general concept of deextinction. FunkMonk (talk) 11:01, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The only DNA we have of the dodo is a mitochondrial genome, which is far from enough to make de-extinction even remotely plausible. It's clearly been suggested based on its popularity, rather than on any practical basis. "de-extinction" coverage in the popular press tends to be hype based and treats the topic rather uncritically, while people who are actually familiar with ancient DNA (e.g. Beth Shapiro) are very critical of the concept. Per WP:ONEWAY, I do not think the promotional, speculative announcement of an unproven company should be included here. Hemiauchenia (talk) 13:52, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

 * There isn't even a full nuclear genome sequence for the dodo, so it's little more than hot air. Hemiauchenia (talk) 06:46, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Not true, we have, indeed, sequenced the dodo's genome a while back, and it's being used in Colossal's dodo de-extinction project. FreezingTNT2 (talk) 15:11, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Short footnote cleanup
As discussed, the article has been edited to bring short footnote usage back into conformance with the style established prior to achieving Featured status.
 * Some additional cleanup edits may be performed as I proof read the new version to make sure I did not inadvertently damage any content.
 * The passenger pigeon article used harvnb for short footnotes, this one used sfn. I left them as is.  Do folks in wikiproject prefer one over the other?  If there is a mix of harvnb and sfns, should I make them all the same?  In these cases which is prefered?  Anyway, I won't switch templates as part of this citation sweep of featured articles unless folks want me to. Comments?
 * There was one source in the reference section which had no corresponding footnote. Don't know what you folks want to do with the following.  I suppose the edit history could be scanned to find out when there was an sfn to it.
 * J JMesserly (talk) 21:00, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
 * As far as I know, there are no citations styles preferred by specific projects, it's more up to the individual writer. As for that citation, I remember it, but it was possibly removed again because a later source reidentified the dodo drawing discussed by it as not being contemporary, and therefore not really significant enough to mention. So it can just be deleted. FunkMonk (talk) 21:06, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
 * My bad. I found where it belongs.J JMesserly (talk) 00:41, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Ouch, there goes my memory... FunkMonk (talk) 15:01, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Ouch, there goes my memory... FunkMonk (talk) 15:01, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

 * Other minor items:
 * What does 71-71. 2 mean in the pages field of the following cite. I presume this is a typo?
 * I overlooked this issue, I think you're right, and it seems you fixed it. And now I look at it, I should probably spell out the Danish abbreviation for "Nat. Tidssk". FunkMonk (talk) 02:24, 5 July 2023 (UTC) FunkMonk (talk) 02:24, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I overlooked this issue, I think you're right, and it seems you fixed it. And now I look at it, I should probably spell out the Danish abbreviation for "Nat. Tidssk". FunkMonk (talk) 02:24, 5 July 2023 (UTC) FunkMonk (talk) 02:24, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

 * It would probably be best not to look too closely at the Dodo article until I make my proofing pass during the next 5 hours. There may be a number of further errors that I shall find.J JMesserly (talk) 00:41, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Ok. I have finished my initial proofing pass of the changes, hand comparing them to the prior version.  I don't see any more egregious errors and don't plan any heavy edits soon, but a second pair of eyes might pick up some errors I didn't weed out.  A large number of the full citations are now directly viewable when the mouse hovers over them, and the reference section is restored to the typical form seen in most wikipedia articles.J JMesserly (talk) 02:49, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 October 2023
“Its extinction was not immediately noticed, and some considered it to be a myth.” This line is ambiguous. What was considered a myth? The dodo or the fact it went extinct? Ghughes23 (talk) 18:44, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Kind of both, but yes, the bird is meant. FunkMonk (talk) 19:04, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ clarified. HouseBlastertalk 04:23, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 October 2023
I want to add to the Extinction section of the dodo bird. I would like to add,

Just to clarify, the dodo bird’s extinction wasn’t solely a result of human actions or competition for resources among other animals. Instead their disappearance is attributed to, “human breed, carelessness, and the contingencies of history.” Bergman, J. (2005). The History of the Dodo Bird and the Cause of Its Extinction. Retrieved from https://www.christianscientific.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/PSCF9-05Bergman.pdf  Lenaleens (talk) 02:33, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: You're requesting to put "Just to clarify, the dodo bird’s extinction wasn’t solely a result of human actions or competition for resources among other animals. Instead their disappearance is attributed to, “human breed, carelessness, and the contingencies of history.”" somewhere in the article? No. It doesn't add anything, much less clarifies. I think you probably meant "greed", as that's what your source writes, but still it's not an explanation and we already have better. Cannolis (talk) 03:29, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I assume "greed" is meant? Either way, none of this contradicts what is already in the article, but it's too hand-wavy to add with this wording. FunkMonk (talk) 08:16, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Height or length?
I found this discussion under a dodo skeletal on Deviantart:

https://www.deviantart.com/comments/1/880014648/4921009032

Is it really true that the 1 meter tall scaling is based on the length of the fully stretched bird at 97 cm (skull to tail) in "An Ecomorphological Review of the Dodo (Raphus cucullatus) and Solitaire (Pezophaps solitaria), Flightless Columbiformes of the Mascarene Islands"? Otodusm (talk) 12:28, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The user says "In actuality, the standing height was around 61 - 67 cm." without mentioning any source, and original research is a no go. So what we need before we can do anything is a reliable source which mentions another height. On a cursory glance, Hume's Extinct Birds says "Description Approximately 70–75cm (28–29in)." But this does not specify whether it refers to height or length. FunkMonk (talk) 17:43, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi,, you added the measurements I listed, but the source doesn't state anything about height, so we need to make the language less specific, as it could also refer to length. FunkMonk (talk) 18:35, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi, I would say it probably refers to height based on this documentary, in which Hume says it probably stood about 2.5 feet tall (at 4:50): https://youtube.com/watch/FO9Lvc2Blus?si=lQ1xboCT5n2SdhDT Also, the the same height (70 cm for females and 90 cm in males) is added in the book for the Rogrigues solitaire as the height in Rodrigues solitaire, further suggesting it refers to height. Otodusm (talk) 00:05, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Would it be possible to create a size diagram? I know that we have but that's obviously based on an inaccurate restoration. What would be the most accurate restoration to trace as a base? The Mansur painting maybe? Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:26, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * While it probably is the height, that's not really how Wikipedia works, we need the source to say so specifically. As for the image, should be easy for someone able to edit SVGs to replace the dodo in the image with a more recent one. Here's a free one by Hume: FunkMonk (talk) 14:39, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Does the scaling on this look about right? Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:38, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Looks nice to me, a shame the image I provided doesn't show the head in profile, then the known head-length could be used for cross-checking... FunkMonk (talk) 09:33, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

New Dodo bird template for user page
I have created an Dodo template for user page. Everyone can use it. See page. Vartolu3566 (talk) 01:00, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Dodo


text:
Dwight Schultz

William Dwight Schultz (born November 24, 1947) is an American television, film and voice actor.

He is known for his roles as Captain "Howling Mad" Murdock on the 1980s action series The A-Team and as Reginald Barclay in the Star Trek franchise.

He is also known in animation as the megalomaniacal mad scientist Dr. Animo in the Ben 10 series, Adrian Toomes/Vulture in some Marvel video games, Chef Mung Daal in the children's animated series Chowder, and Eddie the Squirrel in CatDog.

Early life
Schultz was born in Baltimore on November 24, 1947. He is of German descent and a Roman Catholic. He attended Calvert Hall College High School and Towson University.

Career
Schultz's breakthrough role was that of Captain "Howling Mad" Murdock on The A-Team. He appeared in several films, including The Fan (1981), and he starred in Fat Man and Little Boy (1989) as J. Robert Oppenheimer. In the early 1990s, he had a recurring role as Lieutenant Reginald Barclay in Star Trek: The Next Generation; he reprised the role in Star Trek: Voyager and the film Star Trek: First Contact. He played in the 1992 television film Child of Rage, starring opposite Mel Harris as a compassionate couple who adopt a troubled girl who has been sexually abused. In November 2009, Schultz confirmed that he and former A-Team co-star Dirk Benedict would make cameo appearances in the feature film The A-Team.

Schultz hosted a conservative talk-radio podcast called Howling Mad Radio which ended in March 2009. He has also guest-hosted on numerous occasions for Michael Savage on The Savage Nation, Jerry Doyle on The Jerry Doyle Show, and Rusty Humphries on The Rusty Humphries Show. He also posts political commentaries and podcasts on his official fansite.

Personal life
Schultz married actress Wendy Fulton in 1983. They have a daughter.

Schultz is Catholic and a conservative. In 2012 he began regular appearances on The Glazov Gang, an Internet political talk show hosted by Jamie Glazov, managing editor of FrontPage Magazine.

Broadway

 * Night and Day
 * The Crucifer of Blood
 * The Water Engine

Radio

 * Dark Matters Radio with Don Ecker and Special Co-Host Dwight Schultz
 * Howling Mad Radio
 * The Jerry Doyle Show
 * The Laura Ingraham Show
 * The Rusty Humphries Show
 * The Savage Nation

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

title: Dwight Schultz


text:
User:DavidSaff

To date, I have not been a major contributor of content to Wikipedia--I have contented myself to browse, learn, and correct grammar, spelling, NPOV, and facts where I know them. In doing so, I am bound at some point to make someone mad. If so, please post a comment on this page, which I read. So you might understand why I say and do some of the things I say and do, a little about me:

 * I believe that Wikipedia should allow people to learn and find answers to their questions quickly. For this reason, I try to make pages smaller, where that makes sense; I myself find it easier to find my bearings among many small pages whose relationships are clear, than in one big page.

 * I am not interested in flame wars. I think that to be part of Wikipedia, it is necessary to believe that there is a large body of concepts, people, things, and events about which we agree and can say useful and interesting things.  When we step away from that realm, discussions begin to revolve around which person or group of people are right, rather than what statements are true.  I am still trying to learn to stay out of those discussions--I'm never pleased with myself when I contribute.

 * I think one of the things that drives many flame wars are discussions around the definitions of words. When discussing ideas and truths, words are only important for communication--we can use any words we want, as long as they get us both to the same idea.  When the discussion becomes about people, words and their definitions become much more important.  Words are important territory to hold in a flame war--if I can get you to define a word my way, then suddenly all the people who have ever used the word become my unwitting accomplices.  If you win the definition battle, then many quotes using that word--some of them perhaps my own!--become your ammunition against me.  I try to always remember that if my beliefs are true and useful, they will be strong even after every word has been twisted.

 * For all the above reasons, I find /Talk pages to be often unhelpful. If I had my way, before editing a page, I could pop over to the /Talk page, and find out several things:

 * 1) What edits to the page have been made or proposed, and their status: whether the edit has been made, and whether the edit is disputed.
 * 2) For disputed edits, a _summary_ of the thoughts of each side.
 * 3) Discussion, none of which is more than a week old, directed toward an eventual resolution to be included in one of the two sections above.
 * 4) Archived discussion, for points that are settled or passe.

 * The point is that /Talk pages should strive for to the same objectives as Encyclopedia entries: concise, interesting, and meaningful content, and a neutral point of view. In this case, the subject is not the history of England, but the history of a single Wikipedia article.

 * I find that many /Talk pages on Wikipedia are instead long, hard-to-read collections of thoughts and criticisms, many unsigned, with an eye to the benefit of the writer, not of the reader. Thus, I will refactor these pages where I can easily do so, and ignore them in other cases, in favor of better helping to build the true content.

Please let me know if you believe these principles are wrong, or if I have misapplied them in any given case. I look forward to hearing your thoughts. Thank you.

title: User:DavidSaff


text:
Density

Density (volumetric mass density or specific mass) is a substance's mass per unit of volume. The symbol most often used for density is ρ (the lower case Greek letter rho), although the Latin letter D can also be used. Mathematically, density is defined as mass divided by volume: $$ \rho = \frac{m}{V},$$ where ρ is the density, m is the mass, and V is the volume. In some cases (for instance, in the United States oil and gas industry), density is loosely defined as its weight per unit volume, although this is scientifically inaccurate – this quantity is more specifically called specific weight.

For a pure substance the density has the same numerical value as its mass concentration. Different materials usually have different densities, and density may be relevant to buoyancy, purity and packaging. Osmium is the densest known element at standard conditions for temperature and pressure.

To simplify comparisons of density across different systems of units, it is sometimes replaced by the dimensionless quantity "relative density" or "specific gravity", i.e. the ratio of the density of the material to that of a standard material, usually water. Thus a relative density less than one relative to water means that the substance floats in water.

The density of a material varies with temperature and pressure. This variation is typically small for solids and liquids but much greater for gases. Increasing the pressure on an object decreases the volume of the object and thus increases its density. Increasing the temperature of a substance (with a few exceptions) decreases its density by increasing its volume. In most materials, heating the bottom of a fluid results in convection of the heat from the bottom to the top, due to the decrease in the density of the heated fluid, which causes it to rise relative to denser unheated material.

The reciprocal of the density of a substance is occasionally called its specific volume, a term sometimes used in thermodynamics. Density is an intensive property in that increasing the amount of a substance does not increase its density; rather it increases its mass.

Other conceptually comparable quantities or ratios include specific density, relative density (specific gravity), and specific weight.

Density, floating, and sinking
The understanding that different materials have different densities, and of a relationship between density, floating, and sinking must date to prehistoric times. Much later it was put in writing. Aristotle, for example, wrote: "There is so great a difference in density between salt and fresh water that vessels laden with cargoes of the same weight almost sink in rivers, but ride quite easily at sea and are quite seaworthy. And an ignorance of this has sometimes cost people dear who load their ships in rivers. The following is a proof that the density of a fluid is greater when a substance is mixed with it. If you make water very salt by mixing salt in with it, eggs will float on it. ... If there were any truth in the stories they tell about the lake in Palestine it would further bear out what I say. For they say if you bind a man or beast and throw him into it he floats and does not sink beneath the surface."

Volume vs. density; volume of an irregular shape
In a well-known but probably apocryphal tale, Archimedes was given the task of determining whether King Hiero's goldsmith was embezzling gold during the manufacture of a golden wreath dedicated to the gods and replacing it with another, cheaper alloy. Archimedes knew that the irregularly shaped wreath could be crushed into a cube whose volume could be calculated easily and compared with the mass; but the king did not approve of this. Baffled, Archimedes is said to have taken an immersion bath and observed from the rise of the water upon entering that he could calculate the volume of the gold wreath through the displacement of the water. Upon this discovery, he leapt from his bath and ran naked through the streets shouting, "Eureka! Eureka!" (Εύρηκα!). As a result, the term eureka entered common parlance and is used today to indicate a moment of enlightenment.

The story first appeared in written form in Vitruvius' books of architecture, two centuries after it supposedly took place. Some scholars have doubted the accuracy of this tale, saying among other things that the method would have required precise measurements that would have been difficult to make at the time.

Nevertheless, in 1586, Galileo Galilei, in one of his first experiments, made a possible reconstruction of how the experiment could have been performed with ancient Greek resources

Units
From the equation for density ($ρ = m/V$), mass density has any unit that is mass divided by volume. As there are many units of mass and volume covering many different magnitudes there are a large number of units for mass density in use. The SI unit of kilogram per cubic metre (kg/m3) and the cgs unit of gram per cubic centimetre (g/cm3) are probably the most commonly used units for density. One g/cm3 is equal to 1000 kg/m3. One cubic centimetre (abbreviation cc) is equal to one millilitre. In industry, other larger or smaller units of mass and or volume are often more practical and US customary units may be used. See below for a list of some of the most common units of density.

The litre and tonne are not part of the SI, but are acceptable for use with it, leading to the following units:
 * kilogram per litre (kg/L)
 * gram per millilitre (g/mL)
 * tonne per cubic metre (t/m3)

Densities using the following metric units all have exactly the same numerical value, one thousandth of the value in (kg/m3). Liquid water has a density of about 1 kg/dm3, making any of these SI units numerically convenient to use as most solids and liquids have densities between 0.1 and 20 kg/dm3.
 * kilogram per cubic decimetre (kg/dm3)
 * gram per cubic centimetre (g/cm3)
 * 1 g/cm3 = 1000 kg/m3
 * megagram (metric ton) per cubic metre (Mg/m3)

In US customary units density can be stated in:
 * Avoirdupois ounce per cubic inch (1 g/cm3 ≈ 0.578036672 oz/cu in)
 * Avoirdupois ounce per fluid ounce (1 g/cm3 ≈ 1.04317556 oz/US fl oz = 1.04317556 lb/US fl pint)
 * Avoirdupois pound per cubic inch (1 g/cm3 ≈ 0.036127292 lb/cu in)
 * pound per cubic foot (1 g/cm3 ≈ 62.427961 lb/cu ft)
 * pound per cubic yard (1 g/cm3 ≈ 1685.5549 lb/cu yd)
 * pound per US liquid gallon (1 g/cm3 ≈ 8.34540445 lb/US gal)
 * pound per US bushel (1 g/cm3 ≈ 77.6888513 lb/bu)
 * slug per cubic foot

Imperial units differing from the above (as the Imperial gallon and bushel differ from the US units) in practice are rarely used, though found in older documents. The Imperial gallon was based on the concept that an Imperial fluid ounce of water would have a mass of one Avoirdupois ounce, and indeed 1 g/cm3 ≈ 1.00224129 ounces per Imperial fluid ounce = 10.0224129 pounds per Imperial gallon. The density of precious metals could conceivably be based on Troy ounces and pounds, a possible cause of confusion.

Knowing the volume of the unit cell of a crystalline material and its formula weight (in daltons), the density can be calculated. One dalton per cubic ångström is equal to a density of 1.660 539 066 60 g/cm3.

Measurement
A number of techniques as well as standards exist for the measurement of density of materials. Such techniques include the use of a hydrometer (a buoyancy method for liquids), Hydrostatic balance (a buoyancy method for liquids and solids), immersed body method (a buoyancy method for liquids), pycnometer (liquids and solids), air comparison pycnometer (solids), oscillating densitometer (liquids), as well as pour and tap (solids). However, each individual method or technique measures different types of density (e.g. bulk density, skeletal density, etc.), and therefore it is necessary to have an understanding of the type of density being measured as well as the type of material in question.

Homogeneous materials
The density at all points of a homogeneous object equals its total mass divided by its total volume. The mass is normally measured with a scale or balance; the volume may be measured directly (from the geometry of the object) or by the displacement of a fluid. To determine the density of a liquid or a gas, a hydrometer, a dasymeter or a Coriolis flow meter may be used, respectively. Similarly, hydrostatic weighing uses the displacement of water due to a submerged object to determine the density of the object.

Heterogeneous materials
If the body is not homogeneous, then its density varies between different regions of the object. In that case the density around any given location is determined by calculating the density of a small volume around that location. In the limit of an infinitesimal volume the density of an inhomogeneous object at a point becomes: $$\rho(\vec{r}) = dm / dV$$, where $$dV$$ is an elementary volume at position $$\vec r$$. The mass of the body then can be expressed as $$ m = \int_V \rho(\vec{r})\,dV. $$

Non-compact materials
In practice, bulk materials such as sugar, sand, or snow contain voids. Many materials exist in nature as flakes, pellets, or granules.

Voids are regions which contain something other than the considered material. Commonly the void is air, but it could also be vacuum, liquid, solid, or a different gas or gaseous mixture.

The bulk volume of a material —inclusive of the void space fraction— is often obtained by a simple measurement (e.g. with a calibrated measuring cup) or geometrically from known dimensions.

Mass divided by bulk volume determines bulk density. This is not the same thing as the material volumetric mass density. To determine the material volumetric mass density, one must first discount the volume of the void fraction. Sometimes this can be determined by geometrical reasoning. For the close-packing of equal spheres the non-void fraction can be at most about 74%. It can also be determined empirically. Some bulk materials, however, such as sand, have a variable void fraction which depends on how the material is agitated or poured. It might be loose or compact, with more or less air space depending on handling.

In practice, the void fraction is not necessarily air, or even gaseous. In the case of sand, it could be water, which can be advantageous for measurement as the void fraction for sand saturated in water—once any air bubbles are thoroughly driven out—is potentially more consistent than dry sand measured with an air void.

In the case of non-compact materials, one must also take care in determining the mass of the material sample. If the material is under pressure (commonly ambient air pressure at the earth's surface) the determination of mass from a measured sample weight might need to account for buoyancy effects due to the density of the void constituent, depending on how the measurement was conducted. In the case of dry sand, sand is so much denser than air that the buoyancy effect is commonly neglected (less than one part in one thousand).

Mass change upon displacing one void material with another while maintaining constant volume can be used to estimate the void fraction, if the difference in density of the two voids materials is reliably known.

Changes of density
In general, density can be changed by changing either the pressure or the temperature. Increasing the pressure always increases the density of a material. Increasing the temperature generally decreases the density, but there are notable exceptions to this generalization. For example, the density of water increases between its melting point at 0 °C and 4 °C; similar behavior is observed in silicon at low temperatures.

The effect of pressure and temperature on the densities of liquids and solids is small. The compressibility for a typical liquid or solid is 10−6 bar−1 (1 bar = 0.1 MPa) and a typical thermal expansivity is 10−5 K−1. This roughly translates into needing around ten thousand times atmospheric pressure to reduce the volume of a substance by one percent. (Although the pressures needed may be around a thousand times smaller for sandy soil and some clays.) A one percent expansion of volume typically requires a temperature increase on the order of thousands of degrees Celsius.

In contrast, the density of gases is strongly affected by pressure. The density of an ideal gas is $$\rho = \frac {MP}{RT},$$

where $M$ is the molar mass, $P$ is the pressure, $R$ is the universal gas constant, and $T$ is the absolute temperature. This means that the density of an ideal gas can be doubled by doubling the pressure, or by halving the absolute temperature.

In the case of volumic thermal expansion at constant pressure and small intervals of temperature the temperature dependence of density is $$\rho = \frac{\rho_{T_0}}{1 + \alpha \cdot \Delta T},$$

where $$\rho_{T_0}$$ is the density at a reference temperature, $$\alpha$$ is the thermal expansion coefficient of the material at temperatures close to $$T_0$$.

Density of solutions
The density of a solution is the sum of mass (massic) concentrations of the components of that solution.

Mass (massic) concentration of each given component $$\rho_i$$ in a solution sums to density of the solution, $$\rho = \sum_i \rho_i .$$

Expressed as a function of the densities of pure components of the mixture and their volume participation, it allows the determination of excess molar volumes: $$\rho = \sum_i \rho_i \frac{V_i}{V}\, = \sum_i \rho_i \varphi_i = \sum_i \rho_i \frac{V_i}{\sum_i V_i + \sum_i {V^E}_i},$$ provided that there is no interaction between the components.

Knowing the relation between excess volumes and activity coefficients of the components, one can determine the activity coefficients: $$\overline{V^E}_i = RT \frac{\partial\ln\gamma_i}{\partial P}.$$

title: Density


text:
Talk:Density

Add reference or example
"Osmium and iridium are the densest known elements at standard conditions for temperature and pressure but certain chemical compounds may be denser." Which compounds are denser than Os or Ir? Or are we talking about non standard conditions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.232.235.231 (talk) 05:24, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Add to table: High density liquids at room temperature
Methylene Iodide is unique in that it is a dense (3.325 g·cm−3) room temperature liquid and also an organic compound. It is useful in chemistry laboratories as a methylenating agent and for rare metal / diamond testing & refining liquid.

There is also Clerici solution (thallium formate plus thallium malonate in water). It is liquid at room temperature, with a density of 4.25 g/cm3, however this increases to 5 when warmed. It, along with methylene iodide, are useful for prospecting as they tend to cause precious metals to sink away from ore particles. With Clerici solution, the opposite occurs and diamonds float on it's surface. Another key to their usefulness in this application is that they do not form alloys or react with the items being refined, as gallium might.

Gallium's solid density is 5.91 g·cm−3 but it's melting point is just 29.76 Celsius. (Where it's density becomes 6.095 g·cm−3).

Various gallium alloys exist that are liquid at room temperature and below, e.g. Galinstan. Melting point, -19 Celsius. Density, 6.44 g/cm3 at STP. This has possible applications as a coolant and it, with gallium it's self, are of interest to electronics and semiconductor manufacturers.

Bromine is another example, at 3.1028 g·cm−3 and boiling at 58.8 °C 137.84 fahrenheit 331.9 kelvin

I believe these would make interesting additions to the table as they all have useful properties based on them being dense liquids at, or near, room temperature. A check of google for 'densest liquid' quickly highlights the number of people asking the same thing; with the sole response commonly being 'mercury'. Those examples sweep a good selection of different forms (e.g. none metallic element, metal, metal alloy, organic compound, solution).

No title
"...but not the densest materials." What are the densest materials ? What is denser than osmium ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.222.184.132 (talk) 12:14, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Not sure where to ask this, so I'll just put it here. On the table for #Densities_of_various_materials, could this be cleaned up, so it can be properly sorted by density? i.e. Removing intangible things or putting them in a separate table. Such as the Sun, core of the Earth, black hole, etc.. Thanks.209.150.195.106 (talk) 22:59, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I was thinking the same thing. Working on that now! Dudecon (talk) 23:50, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

 * What a terrible idea!!! You messed up the whole table. Now it's very difficult to read and compare. It's called SCIENTIFIC notation for a reason!

Reviewing Cheatsheet

 * The following highlights current issues. Feel free to either add the issues you've identified, or to strike them as they've been resolved.

WikiProject Physics' Reviewing Cheatsheet (11:16, 8 July 2008 (UTC))

Do not remove the elements, but rather strike them as they becomes useless or irrelevant (i.e write text to be struck ) to indicate that this element was verified and found to be alright. If everything in one of the section (i.e everything in one hidden-box has been addressed), strike that particular hidden box's title. This cheetsheet can be used by anyone. To add the Reviewing Cheatsheet to an article's talk page, simply place   immediately before the first section.

Cheatsheet last updated by: (TStein (talk) 05:19, 12 July 2008 (UTC))

Gravity is a special case of Density with two objects or more
may be, Gravity is a special case of Density the electron does not spin fast enough to merge with the nuclei of the atom, i.e. lower mass/vacuum energy momentum torque of electron to that of the nuclei of the atom, may be because of the electron's smaller mass radius  in comparison to the atom's larger radius. when moving to a higher vacuum energy density (may be because larger mass of the nuclei accumulate larger vacuum energy vector near or on it's surface with it's own torque momentum with vacuum energy)near the nuclei of the atom: electron loses photon because it must spin faster (higher torque momentum of the electron's matter surface resistance vector and the vacuum energy vector which leads to a higher spin of the electron),noting: lower energy vacuum space energy with higher energy matter of the electron and/or the nuclei of the atom. density= matter/vacuum energy--99.109.130.141 (talk) 03:54, 7 October 2010 (UTC)--e:Y,?:G 03:55, 7 October 2010 (UTC) I have initiated this discussion about Density because I have not read an article (or I could not find one) where the topic is: Density of matter in vacuum or Density of matter with respect to vacuum energy, which is very important to physics.--e:Y,?:G 04:15, 7 October 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by E:Y,?:G (talk • contribs) in other words, could it be that: if and where matter is inside vacuum i.e. vacuum energy and at vacuum large enough in volume, density = matter/vacuum energy is higher,denser energy medium i.e. matter/lower,lesser energy medium i.e. vacuum energy then the lower, lesser energy medium i.e. vacuum energy would want to "dilute" the higher, denser energy medium i.e. matter; therefore, the inward force exerted by lower, lesser energy medium i.e. vacuum energy onto the higher, denser matter.--e:Y,?:G 04:47, 7 October 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by E:Y,?:G (talk • contribs)

Density of a black hole
I it may be a stupid question but isn't the density of a black hole infinite? I mean isn't that kind of how a black hole is defined, as a point in space with no extent, a specific mass and infinite density. and that is why light can't escape.

 * No. The "singularity" at the center of a black hole might be a point in space with no extent, but there's no way to tell, because if you're closer than a specific distance from the center, even light (or radio signals) pointed straight away from it can't get away.   This distance, called the Schwarzschild_radius, defines the sphere surrounding the singularity, called the "event horizon", from within which light cannot escape.
 * Interestingly, all black holes rotate, and the rotation deforms the black hole's event horizon. I don't know if this alters the enclosed volume or not... a better physicist than I will have to answer that one. Dudecon (talk) 04:46, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

 * You can take the mass of a black hole, and divide by the volume of this sphere, to get a value with units of density. If you take a black-hole and double its mass by throwing in more matter, its radius will also double -- so interestingly, the more massive a black hole is, the less dense it is.

 * Example: If you took the Earth (6×1024kg) and compressed it to a "point in space with no extent", the closest you could get to that "point" and still radio out would be 9mm.  That's a peanut-sized volume 3cm3 in size, for a "density" of 2×1030kg/m3.

 * On the other hand, the super-massive-black-hole at the center of the Milky Way Galaxy is around (9×1036kg), one and a half trillion times more massive. Its radius (13.5 million km) is larger by the same factor, for a "density" of 9×105kg/m3.  That's still denser than "the core of the Sun", but way lower than an Earth-mass black hole.    (User not logged in) 03:32, 8 March 2013 (PST)

 * You know, given that a black hole's density drops as its mass increases, it's incorrect and misleading that the article lists black holes as having the single, inconceivably-huge density of 2×1030kg/m3.  An Earth-mass black hole is impossible primarily because there's no known force capable of compressing material to such a density.  Given that they're impossible, perhaps their density doesn't belong in the article.

 * The least massive black holes that actually exist are several times the mass of the Sun, and this (higher) mass corresponds to a (lower) density, comparable to the density at the core of a neutron star, (1×1018kg/m3 according to this article), making that pretty much the highest density possible.  From that point on, the more mass you pour into the black hole, the less dense it gets.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.77.184.22 (talk) 09:25, 6 April 2013 (UTC)   I changed the table so now it gives densities for stellar-mass and supermassive black-holes (which exist), rather than Earth-mass black holes (which don't).
 * Perfect. I like the way the article deals with black holes now. Specific example masses with specific densities. Well done! Dudecon (talk) 04:46, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

If it doesn't have infinite density, then some amount of radiation can escape and then it's not a black body.Rphb (talk) 21:17, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * All that is required for a black hole is a gravitational gradient with an escape velocity which exceeds the speed of light. A body doesn't have to be anywhere near infinite density to achieve this. Singularities have never been observed, and may very well not exist. Dudecon (talk) 04:46, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Should we also include the most massive currently known SMBH - S5 0014+81 in this list? Would be informative, according to me. More so in view of the discussion above, concerning the mass-density relation. Since its mass is estimated at 4×1010, while another study suggests a 10 times lower estimate (due to an effect of amplification of the jets' brightness), we could pick any of the runner-ups instead: List of most massive black holes.--Bobbylon (talk) 00:19, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Density of nonideal solutions
Measurements of densities of solutions/mixtures can be used to determine activity coefficients. This statement has been labeled as unsourced.--193.231.20.25 (talk) 10:11, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

There is no real need to be sourced.--193.231.20.25 (talk) 13:30, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I see no equations or qualitative relationships given (the term "activity" doesn't even appear in this article), nor is there anything in activity coefficient explaining specifically how that parameter directly mathematically affects density. DMacks (talk) 22:48, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The activity coefficient has some formula linking excess volume and enthalpy to activity coefficient. It is known that these excess quantities are equal to the volume and enthalpy of mixing having non-zero values in non-ideal solutions where also the activity coefficient differs from unity. Of course some equations must be inserted to provide context for the statement discussed here.--188.26.22.131 (talk) 10:03, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * In this relation which express density as a function of the densities of pure components of the mixture and their volume participation in mixtures with no interaction between the components:
 * $$\rho = \sum_i \rho_i \frac{V_i}{V}.\,$$
 * necessary substitutions could be made.--188.26.22.131 (talk) 10:15, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * like $$V= \sum_i V_i + \sum_i V_i^{E}$$--193.231.20.25 (talk) 11:26, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

What is the relationship between Denstiy and Scratch resistance?
What is the relationship between Denstiy and Scratch resistance? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.194.132.70 (talk) 12:04, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Scratch resistance has more to do with hardness and elasticity than with density. There is probably some correlation between low density and low hardness, but high density is no guarantee of hardness or scratch resistance. For instance, Gold is very dense, but scratches easily because it is soft and inelastic. Tungsten Carbide is dense, but also very hard and is highly resistant to scratching. Rubber is not hard, but very elastic, and because nearly all of the deformation is non-permanent, it is hard to scratch. Dudecon (talk) 04:31, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 January 2015
Correct the units in the table "Densities of various materials covering a range of values". It is support g/cm^3, not kg/m^3.

Maxralf (talk) 16:59, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

❌ as the existing units are correct - e.g. water weighs 1,000kg (1 Tonne) per cubic metre, it does not weigh 1,000g (1 kg) per CC. - Arjayay (talk) 17:19, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Edit Request: "Common Units" Should Show Actual Density Terms
The subsection for U.S. Customary Units under the Common Units heading makes conflicting statements. It includes both lb/ft^3 and slugs/ft^3 as possible density units. This is physically incorrect, as noted in another section, as lb/ft^3 is a term for unit weight. Slugs/ft^3 is the only correct term in the set.

If the common usage of lb/ft^3 in place of density is to be noted, that should be NOTED in the units section so that a person does not conclude that weight/volume is the proper way to calculate density, as we know that mass/volume is the definition of density.

Please make this edit. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.252.33.12 (talk) 21:42, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The mass versus weight confusion is common for the unit of "pound". Our Pound (mass) article seems pretty explicit that "lb" is a standard unit of mass (correlates with kilogram), whereas the Pound (force) defines based on it (the force of the mass at earth's gravity); the force sense is not the fundamental unit. Note that the first time the term is used as a US unit, it's called (and linked) explicitly as "Avoirdupois pound", which is by definition specifically the mass-unit not the force-unit. DMacks (talk) 04:06, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 February 2015
The table of approximate material densities needs to be corrected. The density units in the header are in kg/m^3 so that air is shown correctly at 1.2kg/m^3. What is then incorrect is to show water as 1kg/m^3 and I suspect a lot more of the solid materials in the table also need to be increased by 1000. These figures have probably been taken from another table with units of g/cm^3. For instance Gold is shown as 7.? whereas I'd expect a cubic metre of gold to be many tonnes - probably 7000 kg or so and water, not 1.0 but 1000 as it shows in an earlier table.

86.190.18.53 (talk) 17:58, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

❌ I cannot see a "Table of approximate material densities" but assuming you mean the "Various materials" table, Water does not say 1kg/m³, it says 1,000kg/m³ that is a comma not a stop. As for the Gold figure, I can only see 19,320 not 7.? - Arjayay (talk) 18:14, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Density. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100805010226/http://oilgasglossary.com:80/density.html to http://oilgasglossary.com/density.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 22:59, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 September 2015
206.80.31.55 (talk) 19:41, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Cannolis (talk) 19:45, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 November 2015
Please fix sorting of table "Others" so that Interstellar medium (kg/m3 = 10-19) is correctly sorted as smaller than the other elements of the list

Wheatbyproducts (talk) 04:31, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Thank you. --Stabila711 (talk) 04:04, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

a question
When we say that density is a positive scalar quantity. What do we actually mean by positive here ? --Ankit2299 (talk) 06:58, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Possibly "not less than zero"? That follows logically from its definition based on mass and volume, neither of which seem like they could be negative values. DMacks (talk) 07:12, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 December 2016
195.171.207.74 (talk) 13:06, 1 December 2016 (UTC) jkfjjfrkmfrekj,fngkfdmvfkdhkfkfkkfkfkkf §§§§§§§§§§§§
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Sunmist (talk) 13:32, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 February 2017
I'd like to update the value for density of seawater. There is a standard value at 25C and 35 g/kg salinity. The current value is way off. I'd like to update it to 1023.6 kg/m3, referring to the website: http://web.mit.edu/seawater/ and the papers: a. K.G. Nayar, M.H. Sharqawy, L.D. Banchik, and J.H. Lienhard V, "Thermophysical properties of seawater: A review and new correlations that include pressure dependence," Desalination, Vol. 390, pp.1-24, 2016. doi:10.1016/j.desal.2016.02.024 (preprint) b. Mostafa H. Sharqawy, John H. Lienhard V, and Syed M. Zubair, "Thermophysical properties of seawater: A review of existing correlations and data," Desalination and Water Treatment, Vol. 16, pp.354-380, April 2010. (PDF file which includes corrections through January 2016.) Betterworld123 (talk) 22:47, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. --  Dane talk  21:55, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Concrete
Value given in table for concrete is 2,000 kg/m3, but all other sources I have read, including Wikipedia page "Properties of Concrete", give a typical value of 2,400. Please can someone review and edit as necessary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 42.98.92.235 (talk) 06:32, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is sourced in the lede of [concrete]]. Will adjust. - DePiep (talk) 19:16, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Planck Density
Planck density: density of hypothetical Planck Star or central object of black hole present there instead of singularity. 2601:580:109:FFAD:DD87:4ADD:F44:264E (talk) 01:08, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

What is the significance of density and sp gr. test in oil industry field?
What is the significance of density and sp gr. test in oil industry field? 185.240.17.40 (talk) 07:27, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

"Osmium and iridium are the densest known elements at standard conditions for temperature and pressure"

 * Osmium: 22.61g/cm3.
 * Iridium: 22.65g/cm3
 * Hassium: 41g/cm3

Do we only include stable elements? Hassium is unstable with isotope-276 having the longest half-life of 1.1 hour. Plutonium is unstable with isotope-244 having the longest half-life of 80.8 million years. Do we include plutonium? 2600:1700:D0A0:21B0:16C:429D:E228:58EB (talk) 01:02, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

 * My guess is that only includes experimentally measured densities. We don't really know enough of hassium's crystal structure. 74.135.194.87 (talk) 18:24, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Orders of magnitude (density)
Who got rid of the page (Orders of magnitude (density) )? 74.135.194.87 (talk) 18:25, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Density


text:
Dave Barry

David McAlister Barry (born July 3, 1947) is an American author and columnist who wrote a nationally syndicated humor column for the Miami Herald from 1983 to 2005. He has also written numerous books of humor and parody, as well as comic novels and children's novels. Barry's honors include the Pulitzer Prize for Commentary (1988) and the Walter Cronkite Award for Excellence in Journalism (2005).

Barry has defined a sense of humor as "a measurement of the extent to which we realize that we are trapped in a world almost totally devoid of reason. Laughter is how we express the anxiety we feel at this knowledge."

Early life and education
Barry was born in Armonk, New York, where his father, David W. Barry, was a Presbyterian minister. He was educated at Wampus Elementary School, Harold C. Crittenden Junior High School (both in Armonk), and Pleasantville High School, where he was elected "Class Clown" in 1965. He earned a Bachelor of Arts degree in English from Haverford College in 1969.

As an alumnus of a Quaker-affiliated college, he avoided military service during the Vietnam War by registering as a religious conscientious objector. Notwithstanding his father's vocation, Barry decided "early on" that he was an atheist. He said, "The problem with writing about religion is that you run the risk of offending sincerely religious people, and then they come after you with machetes."

Writing career
Barry began his journalism career in 1971, working as a general-assignment reporter for the Daily Local News in West Chester, Pennsylvania, near his alma mater, Haverford College. He covered local government and civic events and was promoted to City Editor after about two years. He also started writing a weekly humor column for the paper and began to develop his unique style. He remained at the newspaper through 1974. He then worked briefly as a copy editor at the Associated Press's Philadelphia bureau before joining Burger Associates, a consulting firm.

At Burger, he taught effective writing to businesspeople. In his own words, he "spent nearly eight years trying to get various businesspersons to...stop writing things like 'Enclosed please find the enclosed enclosures,' but...eventually realized that it was hopeless." In 1981 he wrote a humorous guest column in The Philadelphia Inquirer about watching the birth of his son, which attracted the attention of Gene Weingarten, then an editor of the Miami Herald's Sunday magazine Tropic. Weingarten hired Barry as a humor columnist in 1983. Barry's column was syndicated nationally. Barry won a Pulitzer Prize for Commentary in 1988 for "his consistently effective use of humor as a device for presenting fresh insights into serious concerns."

Barry's first novel, Big Trouble, was published in 1999. The book was adapted into a motion picture directed by Barry Sonnenfeld and starring Tim Allen, Rene Russo, and Patrick Warburton, with a cameo by Barry (deleted in post-production). The movie was originally due for release in September 2001 but was postponed following the September 11, 2001, attacks because the story involved smuggling a nuclear weapon onto an airplane. The film was released in April 2002.

In response to a column in which Barry mocked the cities of Grand Forks, North Dakota, and East Grand Forks, Minnesota, for calling themselves the "Grand Cities", Grand Forks named a sewage pumping station after Barry in January 2002. Barry traveled to Grand Forks for the dedication ceremony.

Articles written by Barry have appeared in publications such as Boating, Home Office Computing, and Reader's Digest, in addition to the Chicken Soup for the Soul inspirational book series. Two of his articles have been included in The Best American Sports Writing series. One of his columns was used as the introduction to the book ''Pirattitude!: So You Wanna Be a Pirate? Here's How!'' (ISBN 0-451-21649-0), a follow-up to Barry's role in publicizing International Talk Like a Pirate Day. His books have frequently appeared on The New York Times Best Seller list.

On October 31, 2004, Barry announced that he would be taking an indefinite leave of absence of at least a year from his weekly column to spend more time with his family. In December 2005, Barry said in an interview with Editor & Publisher that he would not resume his weekly column, although he would continue such features as his yearly gift guide, his year-in-review feature, and his blog, as well as an occasional article or column.

In 2005, Barry won the Walter Cronkite Award for Excellence in Journalism.

On Sunday, September 22, 2013, the opening night of the 15th annual Fall for the Book festival in Fairfax, Virginia, Barry was awarded the event's highest honor, the Fairfax Prize, honoring outstanding literary achievement, presented by the Fairfax Library Foundation.

Dave's World television series
From 1993 to 1997, CBS broadcast the sitcom Dave's World based on the books Dave Barry Turns 40 and Dave Barry's Greatest Hits. The show starred Harry Anderson as Barry and DeLane Matthews as his wife Beth. In an early episode, Barry appeared in a cameo role. After four seasons, the program was canceled shortly after being moved from its "coveted" Monday night slot to the "Friday night death slot", so named because of its association with low viewership.

Music
During college, Barry was in a band called the Federal Duck (the band actually issued a self-titled album on Musicor Records in 1968, but Barry was no longer in the group by that point). While at the Miami Herald, he and several of his colleagues created a band called the Urban Professionals, with Barry on lead guitar and vocals. They performed an original song called "The Tupperware Song" at the Tupperware headquarters in Orlando, Florida.

Beginning in 1992, Barry played lead guitar in the Rock Bottom Remainders, a rock band made up of published authors. (Remainder is a publishing term for a book that doesn't sell.) The band was founded by Barry's sister-in-law, Kathi Kamen Goldmark, for an American Booksellers Association convention, and has also included Stephen King, Amy Tan, Ridley Pearson, Scott Turow, Mitch Albom, Roy Blount Jr., Barbara Kingsolver, Matt Groening, and Barry's brother Sam, among others. The band's members "are not musically skilled, but they are extremely loud," according to Barry. Several high-profile musicians, including Al Kooper, Warren Zevon, and Roger McGuinn, have performed with the band, and Bruce Springsteen sat in at least once. The band's road tour resulted in the book Mid-Life Confidential: The Rock Bottom Remainders Tour America with Three Chords and an Attitude. The Rock Bottom Remainders disbanded in 2012 following Goldmark's death from breast cancer. They have reunited several times, performing at the Tucson Festival of Books in 2016 and 2018.

Other activities
Beginning in 1984, Barry and Tropic editors Gene Weingarten and Tom Shroder have organized the Tropic Hunt (now the Herald Hunt), an annual puzzlehunt in Miami. A Washington, D.C., spinoff, the Post Hunt, began in 2008.

Barry has run several mock campaigns for President of the United States, running on a libertarian platform. He has also written for the Libertarian Party's national newsletter.

The screen adaptation of Barry's book Dave Barry's Complete Guide to Guys was released in 2005; it is available on DVD.

Personal life
Barry married Lois Ann Shelnutt in 1969. He married Beth Lenox in 1976. Barry and Lenox worked together at the Daily Local News, where they began their journalism careers on the same day in September 1971; they had one child, Robert, born October 8, 1980. Barry and Lenox divorced in 1993. In 1996, Barry married Miami Herald sportswriter Michelle Kaufman; they had a daughter, Sophie, in 2000.

Barry experienced tragedy in his family: his father and his youngest brother suffered from alcoholism, and his father died in 1984; his sister Mary Katherine was institutionalized for schizophrenia; and his mother died by suicide in 1987.

Barry has had dogs named Goldie, Earnest, Zippy, and now Lucy. All have been mentioned regularly in Barry's columns.

Non-fiction

 * The Taming of the Screw (1983, with illustrator Jerry O'Brien)
 * Babies and Other Hazards of Sex: How to Make a Tiny Person in Only 9 Months With Tools You Probably Have Around the Home (1984, with illustrator Jerry O'Brien)
 * Stay Fit and Healthy Until You're Dead (1985, with illustrator Jerry O'Brien)
 * Claw Your Way to the Top: How to Become the Head of a Major Corporation in Roughly a Week (1986, with illustrator Jerry O'Brien)
 * Dave Barry's Guide to Marriage and/or Sex (1987 with illustrator Jerry O'Brien)
 * Homes and Other Black Holes (1988)
 * Dave Barry Slept Here: A Sort of History of the United States (1989)
 * Dave Barry Turns 40 (1990)
 * Dave Barry's Only Travel Guide You'll Ever Need (1991)
 * Dave Barry's Guide to Life (1991) (includes Dave Barry's Guide to Marriage and/or Sex, Babies and Other Hazards of Sex, Stay Fit and Healthy Until You're Dead and Claw Your Way to the Top)
 * Dave Barry Does Japan (1992)
 * Dave Barry's Gift Guide to End All Gift Guides (1994)
 * Dave Barry's Complete Guide to Guys (1996)
 * Dave Barry in Cyberspace (1996)
 * Dave Barry's Book of Bad Songs (1997)
 * Dave Barry Turns 50 (1998)
 * Dave Barry Hits Below the Beltway: A Vicious and Unprovoked Attack on Our Most Cherished Political Institutions (2001)
 * "My Teenage Son's Goal in Life is to Make Me Feel 3,500 Years Old" and Other Thoughts On Parenting From Dave Barry (2001)
 * "The Greatest Invention in the History Of Mankind Is Beer" And Other Manly Insights From Dave Barry (2001)
 * Dave Barry's Money Secrets (2006)
 * Dave Barry on Dads (2007)
 * Dave Barry's History of the Millennium (So Far) (2007)
 * I'll Mature When I'm Dead: Dave Barry's Amazing Tales of Adulthood (2010)
 * You Can Date Boys When You're Forty: Dave Barry on Parenting and Other Topics He Knows Very Little About (2014)
 * Live Right and Find Happiness (Although Beer is Much Faster): Life Lessons and Other Ravings from Dave Barry (2015)
 * Best. State. Ever.: A Florida Man Defends His Homeland (2015)
 * For This We Left Egypt?: A Passover Haggadah for Jews and Those Who Love Them (2017, with Alan Zweibel and Adam Mansbach)
 * Lessons from Lucy (2019)
 * A Field Guide to the Jewish People (2019, with Adam Mansbach and Alan Zweibel)

Collected columns

 * Dave Barry's Bad Habits: A 100% Fact-Free Book (1985)
 * Dave Barry's Greatest Hits (1988)
 * Dave Barry Talks Back (1991)
 * The World According to Dave Barry (1994) (includes Dave Barry Talks Back, Dave Barry Turns 40 and Dave Barry's Greatest Hits)
 * Dave Barry is NOT Making This Up (1995)
 * Dave Barry Is from Mars and Venus (1997)
 * Dave Barry Is Not Taking This Sitting Down (2000)
 * Boogers Are My Beat (2003)

Fiction

 * Big Trouble (1999). ISBN 978-0-399-14567-4.
 * Tricky Business (2002). ISBN 978-1491509692.
 * Peter and the Starcatchers (2004, with Ridley Pearson). ISBN 0-7868-3790-X.
 * Peter and the Shadow Thieves (2006, with Ridley Pearson). ISBN 0-7868-3787-X.
 * Peter and the Secret of Rundoon (2007, with Ridley Pearson). ISBN 0-7868-3788-8.
 * Escape From the Carnivale (2006, with Ridley Pearson). ISBN 0-7868-3789-6.
 * The Shepherd, the Angel, and Walter the Christmas Miracle Dog (2006). ISBN 978-0425217740.
 * Cave of the Dark Wind (2007, with Ridley Pearson). ISBN 0-7868-3790-X.
 * Science Fair (2008, with Ridley Pearson). ISBN 978-1423113249.
 * Peter and the Sword of Mercy (2009, with Ridley Pearson). ISBN 978-1423130703.
 * Blood Tide (2008, with Ridley Pearson). ISBN 978-0786837915.
 * The Bridge to Neverland (2011, with Ridley Pearson). ISBN 978-0425253373.
 * Lunatics (2012, with Alan Zweibel). ISBN 978-0425253373.
 * Insane City (2013). ISBN 978-0399158681.
 * The Worst Class Trip Ever (2015). ISBN 978-1484708491.
 * The Worst Night Ever (2016). ISBN 978-1484708507.
 * Swamp Story (2023). ISBN 978-1982191337.

Film adaptations

 * Big Trouble (2002)
 * Dave Barry's Complete Guide to Guys (2005)
 * Peter and the Starcatchers (Disney project, announced May 17, 2012. Release date TBA)

Collaborations

 * Mid-Life Confidential: The Rock Bottom Remainders Tour America With Three Chords and an Attitude (1994) with Stephen King, Kathi Kamen Goldmark, Al Kooper, Ridley Pearson, Roy Blount, Jr., Joel Selvin, Amy Tan, Dave Marsh, Tad Bartimus, Matt Groening, Greil Marcus, Tabitha King, Barbara Kingsolver, Michael Dorris
 * Naked Came the Manatee (1998) with Carl Hiaasen, Elmore Leonard, James W. Hall, Edna Buchanan, Les Standiford, Paul Levine, Brian Antoni, Tananarive Due, John Dufresne, Vicki Hendricks, Carolina Hospital, Evelyn Mayerson
 * Novels (as listed above) with Ridley Pearson and Alan Zweibel.
 * Hard Listening, (July 2013) is an interactive ebook about his participation in a writer/musician band, the Rock Bottom Remainders. Published by digital publisher, Coliloquy, LLC

Audio recordings

 * A Totally Random Evening With Dave Barry (1992)
 * A Prairie Home Companion: English Majors: A Comedy Collection for the Highly Literate (as guest) (1997)
 * Stranger than Fiction (compilation album) (1998)

title: Dave Barry


text:
David Angell

David Lawrence Angell (April 10, 1946 – September 11, 2001) was an American screenwriter and television producer, known for his work in sitcoms. He won multiple Emmy Awards as the creator and executive producer of the sitcoms Wings and Frasier with Peter Casey and David Lee. Angell and his wife Lynn were killed heading home from their vacation on Cape Cod aboard American Airlines Flight 11, the first plane to hit the World Trade Center during the September 11 attacks.

Early life
Angell was born in Providence, Rhode Island, to Henry and Mae (née Cooney) Angell. He received a bachelor's degree in English literature from Providence College. He married Lynn Edwards on August 14, 1971. Soon after Angell entered the U.S. Army upon graduation and served at the Pentagon until 1972. He then moved to Boston and worked as a methods analyst at an engineering company and later at an insurance firm in Rhode Island. His brother, the Most Rev. Kenneth Angell, was a Roman Catholic prelate and Bishop of Burlington, Vermont.

Career
Angell moved to Los Angeles in 1977. His first script was sold to the producers of the Annie Flynn series. Five years later, he sold his second script, for the sitcom Archie Bunker's Place. In 1983, he joined Cheers as a staff writer. In 1985, Angell joined forces with Peter Casey and David Lee as Cheers supervising producers/writers. The trio received 37 Emmy Award nominations and won 24 Emmy Awards, including the above-mentioned for Frasier. They also won an Outstanding Comedy Series Emmy for Cheers, in 1989, which Angell, Casey, Lee and the series' other producers shared, and an Outstanding Writing/Comedy Emmy for Cheers, which Angell received in 1984. After working together as producers on Cheers, Angell, Casey and Lee formed Grub Street Productions. In 1990, they created and executive-produced the comedy series Wings.

Death
Angell and his wife Lynn were killed in the 2001 September 11 attacks at the World Trade Center in Manhattan. They were among the passengers of American Airlines Flight 11, who were all killed when the plane struck the North Tower of the complex.

Legacy

The American Screenwriters Association awards the annual David Angell Humanitarian Award to any individual in the entertainment industry who contributes to global well-being through donations of time, expertise or other support to improve the human condition.

In 2004, The Angell Foundation of Los Angeles, California, awarded Providence College a gift of $2 million for the Smith Center for the Arts.

The two-part episode of Frasier to air after the attacks, "Don Juan in Hell" airing on September 25, 2001, ended with the memorial tribute, "In loving memory of our friends Lynn and David Angell". In "Goodnight, Seattle", the series finale that aired May 13, 2004, Niles Crane and Daphne Moon's son was born, named David in tribute.

At the National 9/11 Memorial, Angell and his wife are memorialized at the North Pool, on Panel N-1, along with other passengers from Flight 11.

title: David Angell


text:
Diedrich Hermann Westermann

Diedrich Hermann Westermann (June 24, 1875 – May 31, 1956) was a German missionary, Africanist, and linguist. He substantially extended and revised the work of Carl Meinhof, his teacher, although he rejected some of Meinhof's theories only implicitly. Westermann is seen as one of the founders of modern African linguistics.

He carried out extensive linguistic and anthropological research in the area ranging from Senegal eastwards to the Upper Nile. His linguistic publications cover a wide range of African languages, including the Gbe languages, Nuer, Kpelle, Shilluk, Hausa, and Guang.

Westermann's comparative work, begun in 1911, initially brought together much of today's Niger–Congo and Nilo-Saharan language phyla under the name Sudanic languages. His most important later publication Die westlichen Sudansprachen 1927a divided these into East and West Sudanic languages and laid the basis for what would become Niger–Congo. In this book and a series of associated articles between 1925 and 1928, Westermann both identified a large number of roots that form the basis of our understanding of Niger–Congo and set out the evidence for the coherence of many of the families that constitute it. Much of the classification of African languages associated with Joseph Greenberg actually derives from the work of Westermann. In 1927 Westermann published a Practical Orthography of African Languages, which became later known as the Westermann script. Subsequently, he published the influential and oft-reprinted Practical Phonetics for Students of African Languages in collaboration with Ida C. Ward (1933).

He was born in Baden near Bremen and also died there.

title: Diedrich Hermann Westermann