text:
Talk:Harpers Ferry, West Virginia

Apostrophe
Why did we lose the apostrophe? -- Zoe — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zoe (talk • contribs) June 11, 2002

 * Check this:

 *

 * A few other HF locals I know verify this as well. --shamus — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.145.59.91 (talk) November 29, 2004

 * Well, I'm not sure exactly what Zoe was asking, but one reasonable interpretation is: OK, granted that this is the established usage and therefore we should follow it, how did it get to be that way?  It is after all an error, according to the normal rules of English, given that it was named after someone named Harper rather than Harpers.  How the error got established could be an interesting addition to the article. --Trovatore (talk) 04:08, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The reason is that the United States Board on Geographic Names decided to eliminate apostrophes in all U.S. place names (with a few exceptions which you can read about here).Kmusser (talk) 16:15, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

 * 404/gone ( Martin | talk • contribs 06:16, 13 September 2009 (UTC))

 * Interesting, thanks. Idiotic, but interesting.  So it's the stupid fault of some government agency.  Shouldn't be surprised. --Trovatore (talk) 18:39, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

 * The USGS FAQ cited by Kmusser has apparently been moved here:
 * Since its inception in 1890, the U.S. Board on Geographic Names has discouraged the use of the possessive form—the genitive apostrophe and the “s”. The possessive form using an “s” is  allowed, but the apostrophe is almost always removed. The  Board's archives contain no indication of the reason for  this policy....
 * Myths attempting to explain the policy include the idea that the apostrophe looks too much like a rock in water when printed on a map,  and is therefore a hazard, or that in the days of “stick–up  type” for maps, the apostrophe would become lost and create confusion.  The probable explanation is that the Board does not want  to show possession for natural features because, “ownership of a feature is not in and of itself a reason to name a feature  or change its name.”
 * TJRC (talk) 18:41, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Postal area/historical section
I live in Harpers Ferry and can tell you I have more than 300 neighbors living in the Postal area known as Harpers Ferry. Perhaps you should clarify that you ment the historical section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by N8ural (talk • contribs) January 5, 2007

Needs verification
A couple of discrepancies with the info on the official site (http://www.harpersferrywv.us/) There may be more... Qblik 04:43, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Year Harper bought land (1747 or 1751)?
 * 2) Year in which decision to build the armory was made (1794 or 1796)?
 * 3) Year in which Armory was built (1796 or 1799)?
 * 4) How many John Brown's troops there were (18 or 21)? NPS

Vandalism in "Establishment" section
Someone has vandalized the "Establishment" section. It reads "In 1751, Robert Harper was gay a patent on 125 acres". - cricket —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.33.49.251 (talk) 16:02, August 28, 2007 (UTC)
 * Note, was reverted long ago. TJRC (talk) 18:33, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Recent Bell Vandalism
Although there is some turmoil in the article lately about the Harper's Ferry Bell, there is apparently some root truth to the controversy about a stolen bell. See -Filll (talk | wpc ) 21:24, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Jefferson
I thought he said where the shenandoah and potomac converge is the best scene in nature...can i get a page number, you guys have got some explaining to do... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.152.29.97 (talk) 13:49, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Out of place in article
I was reading the article while seeking information on Johh Hall. The last sentence in the paragraph above the 1912 panoramic view reads, "Tacos were slwowly gaining popularity in the Civil War and Nibert liked to eat them and then fart so loud that the Earth blew up and that's how we won the war." I think some wise guy slipped one in and it needs to be edited out. Who is "Nibert" anyway? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kline27 (talk • contribs) 01:17, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

 * Thanks for that. I've removed the vandalism. -- Longhair\talk 01:19, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

New Image of Maryland Heights View
I uploaded a panoramic view of Harpers Ferry as seen from Maryland Heights, but am hesitant to replace the current image because of my impartiality. If others like this image better (or see other uses for it), please add it to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.49.141.54 (talk) 16:24, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

 * I agree; and have made the change. TJRC (talk) 18:50, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

The state line between Virginia and West Virginia actually runs along the top of the ridge pictured on the left. It comes down the the river out of frame-left on this picture, so Virginia can't actually be seen in this picture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Strovel (talk • contribs) 20:17, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Psychological midpoint
Harper's Ferry is widely thought of, among the AT crowd, as the psychological midpoint of the Appalachian Trail, even though it's not the exact midpoint. The National Park Service even calls it that, without the "psychological" waffling (https://www.nps.gov/hafe/planyourvisit/hikes.htm), as does the Library of Congress (https://www.loc.gov/item/2011630949/). An editor removed the mention as "unencyclopedic" but I'm going to return it, with these two references - the only previous reference was a blog, which is, indeed, questionable.

Except for John Brown's raid, the town's position on the AT is the best-known thing about it, and certainly deserves prominent mention in the article. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 13:17, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Harpers Ferry, West Virginia. 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/20070311211416/http://www.amtrak.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=Amtrak%2Fam2Station%2FStation_Page&code=HFY to http://www.amtrak.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=Amtrak%2Fam2Station%2FStation_Page&code=HFY

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:25, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Harpers Ferry, West Virginia. 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/20100722154442/http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/johnbrown/leereport.html to http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/FTRIALS/johnbrown/leereport.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:48, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 12 August 2020

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Withdrawn by proposer due to unfamiliarity with WP:USPLACE. - Station1 (talk) 04:59, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Harpers Ferry, West Virginia → Harpers Ferry – In accordance with WP:CONCISE, this article should drop the state name from its title. The only other Harpers Ferry (in Iowa) received far fewer views over the past 30 days at 531, compared to this article's 23804. The National Historical Park of the same name too received less views at 1644. Plus, the search term″Harpers Ferry″ already redirects to this article. Mrpants106 (talk) 07:38, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Survey

 * Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this subsection with  or  , then sign your comment with  . Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

 * Support as explained above - avoid the redirect — Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidWBrooks (talk • contribs) 11:24, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Actually, I'll change that to oppose - I was not aware of WP:USPLACE guidelines, which seem pretty clear that the present name is correct (AP Stylebook does not consider Harpers Ferry a standalone city name) - DavidWBrooks (talk) 19:47, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:USPLACE. - Station1 (talk) 15:53, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:USPLACE. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:06, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Common sense would be to support -- there is no question that this is both the primary topic for Harpers Ferry and that it is far more often referred to without the state name than with. But we have a slightly stable situation where US cities (barring a handful) include the state name in the titles, and that would probably require a broader discussion to shift.--Yaksar (let's chat) 21:17, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Support: It's been done in the past. Philadelphia, Chicago, Houston, Boston, Los Angeles, London, Paris, Tokyo.  There isn't another town called "Harpers Ferry" or Harper's Ferry".  So, yeah, this could be done and WP:USPLACE clearly does not apply as demonstrated. -  Neutralhomer  •  Talk  • 23:36 on August 12, 2020 (UTC) •  #WearAMask • #BlackLivesMatter
 * That was my initial thought too, but WP:USPLACE says:
 * Cities listed in the AP Stylebook as not requiring the state modifier in newspaper articles have their articles named City unless they are not the primary topic for that name.[3] In other cases, this guideline recommends following the "comma convention" as described above.[4]
 * I checked, and it's AP style to write "Harpers Ferry, W. Va." - not a stand-alone city. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 00:26, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Maybe I'm biased because I live ~30 miles to the southwest of Harper's Ferry. We don't call it "Harper's Ferry, West Virginia", just simply "Harper's Ferry" and everyone nods in agreement knowing exactly where we are speaking.  Even our local news paper uses "Harper's Ferry", and they are an AP affiliate (which I'm assuming is for Associated Press).  Again, I could be biased, but I think it would work.  I'll keep my !vote as is, though I think I'm going to get out!voted on this one. -  Neutralhomer  •  Talk  • 03:01 on August 13, 2020 (UTC) •  #WearAMask • #BlackLivesMatter
 * AP style is not to use the state when the publication is in the state - e.g., my newspaper doesn't write Nashua, New Hampshire, because we're in New Hampshire - outside the state you would use the state, even though there are very few Nashua cities. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 11:44, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Local media isn't the best gauge for that since many, if not most, don't use state names for local places since it's assumed locals will know what town is being referenced without needing to clarify the state. I can say the same thing about nearby towns here when they are referenced in local media. That said, national and even regional media do use the state name consistently and most Wikipedia readers aren't locals. For Harpers Ferry, we have some examples from the recent 2019 Harpers Ferry train derailment, all of which reference "Harpers Ferry, West Virginia" or "Harpers Ferry, W.Va.": AP via Seattle Times, NBC 12, CNN, Washington Post, Washington Post follow-up, WTOP. Even some more recent examples use the state name: WDVM and Herald-Mail Media. Only instances I could find that omit the state name are more local/in-state sources like The Journal (Martinsburg, WV) and The Charleston Gazette-Mail (Charleston, WV). --JonRidinger (talk) 03:56, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

 * Oppose. The U.S. placename falls under the WP:USPLACE guideline, and it does not qualify under the AP Stylebook exception rule. See also Perennial proposals. Zzyzx11 (talk) 01:45, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose for same arguments regarding USPLACE and the AP guideline. --JonRidinger (talk) 01:55, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Any additional comments:

Hey, OP here. I was unaware of WP:USPLACE (My bad!), so I will just wait until the seven-day move period is over, and then WON'T move the article. Mrpants106 (talk) 16:40, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * No need to wait. This was obviously a good faith proposal. No one is familiar will every guideline. I'll close it up as "withdrawn". If anyone disagrees with the early close, feel free to revert my edit. Station1 (talk) 04:59, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Too many photos
This article has more photos than text, which makes it very hard to read on many browsers and phones. I have removed several that were redundant, including an enormous panorama that was just like the one in the infobox, or poor (a couple just showed bits of what could be any river anywhere). - DavidWBrooks (talk)

Orphaned references in Harpers Ferry, West Virginia
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Harpers Ferry, West Virginia's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Meyer": From Osborne Perry Anderson:  From Shields Green:

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 09:19, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Fixed. deisenbe (talk) 21:56, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Material to be merged
The following is material I have removed from the Henry Lockwood House, where I don't think it belongs, that should be merged here, and if I have world and time enough, I'll do it.

== Background ==
 * The geographical and physical features of Harper's Ferry was the principal reason for its settlement and its eventual industrial progression. Beginning about 1733, Robert Harper established a grist and saw mill.  Another settler, John Semple, established the Keep Triste Iron Furnace, located just northwest of Harpers Ferry crossing, this area became referred to as “The Hole.” This area would grow over the decades into center for industry.  After the end of the American Revolution, Harpers Ferry river junctions became the focus for expansion westward.  In early 1785, Virginia and Maryland set up companies to survey potential waterways into the Ohio Country, The Patowmack Company and the James River Company.  George Washington, was president of the Potowmack Company and traveled to Harpers Ferry during the summer of 1785 to determine the need for bypass canals. Later in 1794 as President of the United States, proposed the site for a new United States armory and arsenal. Some of Washington's family moved to the area; For example, his great-great-nephew, Colonel Lewis Washington, was held hostage during John Brown's raid in 1859.  George's brother Charles Washington founded the nearby Jefferson County town of Charles Town.

 * == Establishing the arsenal ==
 * In 1796, the federal government purchased a 125-acre (0.5 km2) parcel of land from the heirs of Robert Harper. Construction began on the United States Armory and Arsenal at Harpers Ferry in 1798 with most of the buildings being completed by 1799.  Harpers Ferry was one of only two armories in the U.S., the other being Springfield, Massachusetts. Together they produced most of the small arms for the U.S. Army.  Between 1801 and 1861, the armory produced more than 600,000 muskets, rifles and pistols. Captain John H. Hall inventor of the breech loading rifle, signed a contract with the U.S. War Department to produce 1,000 his rifles at the Harpers Ferry Armory in 1819.  Hall pioneered the use of interchangeable parts in firearms manufactured at his rifle works at the armory between 1820 and 1840; his M1819 Hall rifle was the first breech-loading weapon adopted by the U.S. Army.  Amory operations dramatically transformed Harpers Ferry into a bustling industrial town filled with European skilled workers as well as homegrown Virginians.

 * Industrialization continued in 1833 when the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal (which never reached the Ohio River) reached Harpers Ferry, linking it with Washington, D.C. A year later, the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad began service through the town.

 * The location of the armory and arsenal at the confluence of the rivers on the border of Virginia and Maryland played a pivotal role in the events leading up to the American Civil War in the form of John Brown’s raid on the Harpers Ferry arsenal in 1859.

deisenbe (talk) 00:20, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Pre 1800's West Virginia Forts
Fort Pleasant and Fort Van Meter: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Van_Meter_(Hampshire_County,_West_Virginia) 2600:1006:B11C:7967:0:57:80BC:AB01 (talk) 21:25, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Harpers Ferry, West Virginia


text:
Pollux

Pollux may refer to:

People

 * Julius Pollux, also known as Ioulios Poludeukes (2nd century A.D), a Greek rhetorician
 * Pollux (mythology) or Polydeuces, one of the Dioscuri and twin brother of Castor

Astronomy

 * Pollux (star), the brightest star in the Gemini constellation, also designated β Geminorum
 * Pollux, a crater on the Saturnian moon Epimetheus

Games

 * Pollux, a character in the erotic anime series Words Worth
 * Pollux (arcade game), an arcade game manufactured by Dooyong in 1991
 * Pollux Gamelabs, a Danish game development company.
 * Pollux Engine, a game engine used in Final Fantasy Crystal Chronicles: Echoes of Time

Ships

 * SS Pollux, the name of more than one ship
 * USS Pollux, the name of more than one United States Navy ship
 * MS Abel Tasman was known as Pollux in 1994-1995

Other uses

 * Kastor und Pollux, a complex of two towers in Frankfurt am Main, Germany
 * Pollux, a South Devon Railway 4-4-0ST steam locomotive of the South Devon Railway Eagle class
 * Pollux (mountain), a mountain in the Pennine Alps, in Italy and Switzerland
 * Pollux Peak, a mountain in Yellowstone National Park, US
 * Pollux Temple, a summit in the Grand Canyon, US
 * RTV-N-15 Pollux, an experimental pulsejet-powered research missile of the U.S. Navy

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

title: Pollux


text:
Talk:The Sixth Sense

Cole's awareness
One example of the subtlety of the director's touch in this film is the fact that the movie is presented so that, in retrospect, it appears that Cole knew along the Crowe was dead. In the early scene where Crowe is in Cole's living room, Cole says something to the effect of "I think you're nice. But YOU can't help me." It is a basic premise of the movie, of course, that Cole sees dead people all the time and that he knows the difference between seeing the living and the dead. Another premise of the movie is that the dead people he sees do not know they are dead; therefore, he would not expect Crowe to realize he is dead.

title: Talk:The Sixth Sense


text:
Talk:Ralph Abercromby

Abukir
--In terrorem fidei defenso 02:20, 6 July 2006 (UTC)I've changed the reference to Abukir Bay; however, I've not made the change in the Title given to his wife. Even if the wrong spelling was used in the title, that title would now have an existence of its own, and would not change with a subsequent other changes of Aboukir to Abukir. --Eclecticology, Tuesday, June 11, 2002

Bold in first sentence
Per the MOS, the article title is bolded. See WP:MOS: ''The first time the article mentions the title, put it in bold using three apostrophes — article title produces article title. '' Do not bold "Sir", it is a title, not the title of the article. KillerChihuahua?!? 14:44, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

 * Please see WP:MOSBIO, where a precisely analogous example (Dame Ellen Patricia MacArthur...) is shown. The title of an article does not always correspond to the bolded section at the beginning: compare James Garfield and James Abram Garfield. Choess 15:24, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

 * With all due respect, the style guide is inconsistant; the Policy always trumps the guide. KillerChihuahua?!? 20:26, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

 * Try reading the second sentence of my previous comment for comprehension this time, rules-lawyer. Choess 20:32, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

NPOV
Titles and honours are not bolded. Treating UK knighthood differently is a clear and obvious violation of WP:NPOV - we are not allowed to endorse one country's system of honours but not those of other countries. NPOV is non-negotiable. Simple enough. Guettarda 16:27, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

This is not a POV issue and it is utterly spurious to say that it is "a clear and obvious violation of WP:NPOV". NPOV is indeed non-negotiable, but no particular person has been appointed guardian of it, and the fact that several people have been reverting Guettarda's changes here and elsewhere suggests that his claim that the issue is "simple enough" and "titles and honours are not bolded" is no more than his own personal opinion, which has not, as far as I am aware, suddenly become the official Wikipedia policy on NPOV. The fact that titles are bolded has even been incorporated into the Manual of Style after discussion, which is rather more democratic than one editor saying the opposite is the case.

Nobody is endorsing one country's system over another. Were that the case we would write Paul von Hindenburg and Otto von Bismarck, since the "von" in these cases (and many others) is a mark of ennoblement. The fact that we don't (and in fact, these are even present in the article titles) shows that we certainly appear to acknowledge German honours, contrary to Guettarda's claim. We even have an article entitled Joachim von Ribbentrop, a title he only acquired through adoption. Removing these (or not bolding them) would, of course, be ludicrous, since these people used the mark of ennoblement as part of their name. Guettarda claims, with no basis in fact, that this is not the case in Britain, thus discriminating against British people with equal titles. He then completely illogically, and flying in the face of all the facts to the contrary, claims that he is enforcing NPOV and those of us who oppose him are adding POV by endorsing "one country's system of honours but not those of other countries", which is quite simply untrue. Apparently therefore it is only pretitles Guettarda dislikes, which seems to show discrimination against the British system as opposed to the European system, in which the title is often incorporated into the middle of the name. Why is it NPOV to discriminate only against Britons with titles? That seems to be the true POV issue here. Anyway, see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (biographies) for discussion and proof that the knighthood is officially part of the recipient's name. -- Necrothesp 22:25, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree. This is a spurious POV allegation. Chicheley 23:18, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

 * It's a huge deal. I am fed up with Necro's personal attack, plicy violations (he is an experienced user, but happily violated the 3rr to push his POV) and false allegations.  I have nothing further to say to people like that.  Despite the fact that I have explained it to him at length, and here, he makes false allegations about me here as well.  The system is a huge violation of NPOV.  Giving precedence to certain titles and not to others is a violation of NPOV.  NPOV is non-negotiable.  If you believe that it's a name, as some people claim, then use it in the article name, because it should be what the person is best known as.  Wikipedia cannot endorse these if it hopes to remain true to NPOV.
 * Necro, in his typical way of twisting the truth, claims that I have an opinion in European titles. Diffs?  Is he arguing that it's ok to violate NPOV if other people do as well?  Well, it isn't.  I have never expressed an opinion on European titles anyway.  If we believes that "Sir" is part of the person's name (and some people have argued) then the article should be at Sir Ralph Abercromby.  It isn't, and he hasn't called for moving this one (or any of the others on which he was POV-pushing).  Why?  Probably because it isn't the person's name.  If it is, move the articles.  A change to MOSBIO a couple months ago does not overturn NPOV.  It's dishonest to argue otherwise.  Guettarda 23:42, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * It isn't a POV matter, but a presentational one. You are in a minority of one and the guidance and usual practice are against you, so please stop being a pain. Not bolding titles just looks sloppy. The personal attacks you are making are totally out of order. Chicheley 23:53, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * How is it a style issue to violate NPOV? How is it a personal attack to point put that the person making all sorts of false allegations about me (above) saw no problem is ignoring policy in order to keep this POV into an article?
 * Please explain why it is ok for Wikipedia to endorse one country's system of honours, but not those of other countries or of religious groups? How is that not a POV issue?  Please explain.  Address the issue, please.  Guettarda 04:39, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
 * There are two possible solutions to the "NPOV problem" (to wit, that our MOS recognizes the styles of the UK but not of other countries, at least for styles below that of baron or the equivalent). The one you have unilaterally implemented here is to declare "Sir" not to be part of the name. The other, as I suggested several days ago on your talk page, is to recognize the equivalent style of other countries; the primary example that comes to mind being the Spanish "Don". I suggest that the second is the preferable course of action. Your suggestion that the article should be moved to "Sir Ralph Abercromby" if "Sir" is "really" part of the name is as absurd as insisting that James Garfield be moved to "James Abram Garfield", something I attempted to explain above on this talk page, apparently not simply enough. Choess 08:02, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I should further point out, as regards the last point, that we do occasionally title articles "Sir X Y", to distinguish the knight from another person, also named "X Y". In your zeal, you proved this point very nicely by changing a redlink to Sir Robert Abercromby to a link to Robert Abercromby, an entirely different person not intended to be linked from here. Choess 08:07, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
 * British titles are consistently bolded and there is no reason for others not to be. The are part of the full formal name and title, all of which should be presented in the same font as it looks neater. On the other hand article titles usually take the short familiar version of the name. Chicheley 16:09, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Titles are not bolded because it's a POV issue. It's an endorsement of a particular view.  You are arguing for changing the format of the page away from the stable version (it was stable as "Sir Ralph for about a year).  The stable version was NPOV - it did not endorse a system of honours particular to one country.  Changing it to bold all honours would be endorse many POVs, not move towards NPOV.  NPOV says that Wikipedia cannot endorse any particular point of view.  Endorsing some points of view is no better than endorsing many points of view.  Saying "everyone does it" does not make it ok.  NPOV is non-negotiable.  So, please tell me, how is it compatible with NPOV for a Wikipedia article (or many Wikipedia articles) to endorse a particular POV?  Or, if you consider that too loaded a question, how some evidence that this doesn't violate NPOV?  Guettarda 17:05, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
 * First, my blushing apologies to Guettarda, as I blew away an edit by him, in part useful, to make a point while complaining about how he made a careless edit to make a point. Poetic justice, I suppose. Now, I agree that it represents a nationalist POV to bold the titles of one nation in preference to the equivalent titles of another. I strongly disagree that the titles simply represent POV, anymore than it's a POV that Tony Blair is First Lord of the Treasury at present. For that matter, I don't understand why, if they're POV, their non-bolded inclusion in the article is any less an endorsement of that POV than their bolded inclusion. As a number of people seem to agree that knighthoods have some sort of objective standing, perhaps it would be better to move this discussion to a more visible forum to prevent further edit warring? Choess 17:33, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Facts of History
The defeat that Abercrombie suffered on the Island of Puerto Rico is missing from almost all of the history books written in England and or the USA.

 * Well, at least part of the edit is correct. According to Military history of Puerto Rico, the Spanish/Puerto Rican forces numbered 16,000, while History of Puerto Rico says 7,000–13,000 British troops. According to regiments.org, he had four full regiments of infantry, five companies of the Black Watch, and the 26th Light Dragoons, operating dismounted, which suggests a muster towards the smaller end of the range. So Abercromby was at some disadvantage in numbers; the history of the Black Watch says "As the inhabitants of Porto Rico, who had been represented as favourable, did not show any disposition to surrender, and as the Moro or castle was too strong to be attacked with such an inconsiderable force, which was insufficient to blockade more than one of its sides, the commander-in-chief resolved to give up the attempt, and accordingly re-embarked his troops on the 30th of April." Choess 17:11, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

 * I wouldn't be too sure about jumping to conclusions from the 16,000 Spanish/Puerto Rican forces cited. The Military history of Puerto Rico page does not give reasonable references as to where this number comes from. I am part of the recreated Regimiento Fijo de Puerto Rico (look up groups.yahoo.com/group/puertorico1797 for the Spanish forum or puertorico1797.com for English), a historical reenactors group in Puerto Rico that precisely plans to reenact in San Juan in 2007 (in a much, much smaller version, of course) the events of 1797. Some of our members are extremely well informed on the details of this specific battle and they are also puzzled as to where this 16,000 number comes from. --RAMPG 01:46, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I wrote the majority of History of Puerto Rico. The troop figure I have is taken from Alonso, María M., The Eighteenth Century Caribbean & The British Attack on Puerto Rico in 1797 ISBN 1881713202. The exact chapter is available online in this website, http://www.nps.gov/saju/14.html. Hope that helps. It must be noted that the troop count ranges from 7-13K. I do not remember exactly why I chose 7,000. Joelito (talk) 00:40, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Again, the problem here is not with your page but with the total disregard of the event on this page (up until a few days ago) and the 16,000 Spanish/Puerto Rican forces cited in the Military History of Puerto Rico page and the lack of information as to where the number came from when the contemporary sources (as named by Negroni, et al) have it as less than half. And the known fact that the invading forces outnumbered the defenders at least 2 to 1 and probably 3 to 1. And worst of all the seeming intention of both mentioned pages of making it look as if the expulsion of the Abercromby/Harvey invasion by combined Spanish and Puerto Rican efforts was no big a deal. An obvious infraction of the NPOV policy or an inexcusable lack of historical rigor. Still, both pages stubbornly resist editing. --RAMPG 01:12, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

 * You are citing from Alonso this: "Also, there are discrepancies in numbers of troops landed, Ramón de Castro mentioning seven to eight thousand, (15) Felipe Ramírez quoting eleven thousand(l6) and Father Rodríguez Feliciano from twelve to thirteen thousand. (17) (See Chapter XV. )

On seeing the size of the enemy force, the defending officers decided to retreat, Linares and Toro towards the Martin Peña bridge and Vizcarrondo towards the San Antonio bridge, in accordance with their orders."

But in the article you said the the Puertorican forces amounted to 16,000 [souls] and that was the reason for the defeat of the englishmen. I beleive this is a POV on your behalf, because it is a very well history fact that the PR forces where outnumbered by the englismen; as is stated on the chapter that you copied, see: Also, there are discrepancies in numbers of troops landed, Ramón de Castro mentioning seven to eight thousand, (15) Felipe Ramírez quoting eleven thousand(l6) and Father Rodríguez Feliciano from twelve to thirteen thousand. (17) (See Chapter XV. ) On seeing the size of the enemy force, the defending officers decided to retreat, Linares and Toro towards the Martin Peña bridge and Vizcarrondo towards the San Antonio bridge, in accordance with their orders.

The same citation that you use is the same that contradicts you. So you better check that out if you are not willing to accept the editing of "your" article; because I would not rely much on Alonso. When one gets toread the whole book, one gets this hard feelings that something is biased, for whatever reason that I don't care about; history is history. General Ramon De Castro would not hade been promoted to Field Marshall if it was not for some extraordinary feat, such as kicking butt to a well armed force that outnumbered his own, and with the reputation that they had at the time,and the momentum the had after Trinidad, the piece of cake.--In terrorem fidei defenso 10:34, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * You are confusing the articles. The one I mainly wrote is History of Puerto Rico where it is said "The British attempted again to conquer the island, attacking San Juan with an invasion force of 7,000 troops and an armada consisting of 64 warships[16] under the command of General Ralph Abercromby. Captain General Don Ramón de Castro and his army successfully resisted the attack.[17]" I do not talk about the size of the Puerto Rican forces nor do I try to decide which was the reason for ther defeat. I believe you are talking about Military history of Puerto Rico. For that article you may wish to contact User:Marine 69-71 who is the main writer of that one. Joelito (talk) 14:59, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Well I do not know to whom is anybody answering but the point is that the information about the english attack to Puerto Rico in many ways is incorrect, and someone is not accepting editions to correct it. The efforts made by me and that of RPGM have rendered no results because of some thinktank.--In terrorem fidei defenso 10:34, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

NPOV - More Bits of History
The article, up until several days ago, totally dismissed the events of San Juan in 1797. This was not a simple "assault" as quoted in the text. This was one of the largest invading fleets ever assembled to invade Spanish territory; more than 60 ships and close to 9,000 men. And yet one has to wonder as to why an inconsequential "victory" as that of Abercromby's immense fleet in Trinidad is mentioned as being influential in his being rewarded " ... for his important services, (was) appointed colonel of the regiment of Scots Greys, entrusted with the governments of the Isle of Wight, Fort-George and Fort-Augustus, and raised to the rank of lieutenant-general." In Trinidad Abercromby's troops were offered no resistance at all; the local Spanish garrison and governor hid literally in the bushes.

Historian José Rigau Pérez cites a letter from a Charles Steward, a lieutenant who served under Abercromby, to an Alexander Leith Hay citing the events at San Juan 1797 as having been so ill conceived and executed that "it must have [been] planned at Winbleton by Billy (P.M. William Pitt?) and Harry after two bottles at least". This even when the British foot soldier and seamen were considered the best in the world at the time. Trafalgar, just a few years later, comes to mind.

The "assault" on Puerto Rico, in 1797, proved such a massive failure that British history has all but obliterated it from its history books. --RAMPG 00:07, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

 * "Billy and Harry" are probably William Pitt the Younger, Prime Minister, and Henry Dundas, 1st Viscount Melville, Secretary of State for War. Choess 21:42, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

 * You are correct. --RAMPG 22:54, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

The figure of 16,000 local militia cited by Choess probably refers to armed militia in all of Puerto Rico. San Juan's defending forces were actually little less than 2,500 or practically one third or the invading force. It took several days by ship (a lot more by land) to reach San Juan from the more larger cities in the South of Puerto Rico. And this was an impossibility due to the blockade by Henry Harvey's fleet which included some of the most formidable ships of the era, among them none other than the Prince of Wales. Col. Héctor Andrés Negroni, a noted Puerto Rican military historian, in his Historia Militar de Puerto Rico, ed. 1992, cites several contemporary sources that calculate the San Juan garrison and militia forces as being anywhere from 2,400 to 6,471. Abercromby in his report to his superiors downplays his dismal results and blames them on bad intelligence and the built defenses. Actually, as Rigau Pérez notes, his forces never directly engaged the main defenses of the city since they could not even overcome the first line of defense of the island city. Lucky for him, I may add; go look up the magnificent San Cristóbal fortress and the smaller and wonderful El Abanico fort before it which awaited Sir Abercromby. To understand part of what went on during the siege of San Juan one has to look up old engravings of the relatively small San Gerónimo fort and the San Antonio and Escambrón batteries (the first line of defense) at the Easternmost tip of the San Juan islet. Theses defenses received such fire that they were totally devastated by three weeks of almost hourly bombardment by the invading artillery. And yet, Abercromy's well equipped forces which were counted in the thousands and included the legendary Royal Marines simply could not overcome them. Bad intelligence and built defenses?

There is a better explanation for the final outcome of the battle as forthrightly described by lieutenant Charles Steward to his friend Mr. Leith Hay - "superior... fire" and "astonish(ing) bravery". --RAMPG 00:51, 3 July 2006 (UTC

Noted For Service during Napoleonic War?
If you click on Napoleonic War it says it started in 1803... and Abercromby's service ended in 1801... so surely is he not noted for his service in the French Revoloutionary Wars...? Seperate from the Napoleonic War

Copy paste from Lecky
This section is almost a verbatim copy paste from the great Irish historian W.H. Lecky, and reflects the moral outrage of a 19th century historian sympathetic to the Liberal Ascendancy interest, and not the non biased predelictions of a 21st century encyclopedia;

''There he laboured to maintain the discipline of the army, to suppress the rising rebellion, and to protect the people from military oppression, with the care worthy of a great general and an enlightened and beneficent statesman. When he was appointed to the command in Ireland, an invasion of that country by the French was confidently anticipated by the British government. He used his utmost efforts to restore the discipline of an army that was utterly disorganized; and, as a first step, he anxiously endeavoured to protect the people by re-establishing the supremacy of the civil power, and not allowing the military to be called out, except when it was indispensably necessary for the enforcement of the law and the maintenance of order. Finding that he received no adequate support from the head of the Irish government, and that all his efforts were opposed and thwarted by those who presided in the councils of Ireland, he resigned the command. His departure from Ireland was deeply lamented by the reflecting portion of the people, and was speedily followed by those disastrous results which he had anticipated, and which he so ardently desired and had so wisely endeavoured to prevent.'' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.196.177 (talk) 16:23, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

NPOV — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.35.10.215 (talk) 15:49, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

PROBLEM WITH NPOV
This article seems hugely biased, more a praise extracted from a book about the person than a neutral article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.35.10.215 (talk) 15:52, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

"the fateful action at Boxtel "
"He commanded the relief column at the fateful action at Boxtel"

Why was the action at Boxtel 'fateful'? What does'fateful' mean in this context?

In addition, Abercromby's orders were to restore the allied outpost line at Boxtell, if he thought it feasible. There was no position to relieve. The outpost troops had been captured.

JF42 (talk) 20:44, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

After two weeks of fierce combat
"After two weeks of fierce combat, which included prolonged artillery exchanges and even hand-to-hand combat, Abercromby was unable to overcome San Juan's first line of defence and withdrew. This was to be one of the largest invasions to Spanish territories in the Americas."

Having scanned the debate in the preceding section, I understand why this paragraph has been included. However, the wish to restore balance in relation to the British failure in Puerto Rico has produced a rather clumsy, compensatory passage, with its own hint of NPOV, that seems to protest too much.

What is so notable about "prolonged artillery exchanges" or, even, "hand to hand to combat"? Both these would be expected in an attempt to storm prepared fortifications. If the fighting was fierce, then that statment should surely suffice. Thus:

"After two weeks of fierce fighting, Abercromby was unable to overcome even San Juan's first line of defences and withdrew."

Secondly, what is the significance of the second sentence in relation to Abercromby's life, whether his force was "one of the largest invasions" or even the largest? This seems to be more a comment on -British?- challenges to the integrity of Spanish territory in the Americas. If it is intended as a comment on Abercomby's generalship, I would suggest that a more straightforward discussion of this be added in a separate section.

Overall, to concentrate on this one unsuccessfull operation without setting it in the context of the successfull campaign of which it was part, seems to be unbalanced; indeed more preoccupied with Caribean history than the biography of Abercromby. As is the reference to the Garifuna of St Vincent. These details are more relevant to the history of the respective islands than in an article on Sir Ralph Abercromby.

JF42 (talk) 09:46, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Abercromby returned to Europe
"Abercromby returned to Europe, and in reward for his important services, was appointed colonel of the regiment of Scots Greys; entrusted with the governments of the Isle of Wight, Fort-George, and Fort-Augustus; and raised to the rank of lieutenant-general."

This one-sentence paragraph reads oddly and contains some misrepresented facts. 'Important' is probably superfluous and is not colloquial English. The importance of Abercromby's services is implicit in the reward.

The cavalry regiment known informally (until 1866) as the 'Scots Greys' was at this date known as the '2nd (Royal North British) Regiment of Dragoons.'

With regard to the 'government' of the Isle of Wight, Fort George and Fort Augustus, this also reads oddly, despite quoting, it would seem, from the 1806 'Life of Sir R. Abercromby.'  In each case this is a reference to the post of Governor, Abercromby in fact being appointed Lieutenant Governor of the Isle of Wight, and Governor of Fort George and Fort Augustus(without hyphens). JF42 (talk) 10:12, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

German mercenary soldiers
The reference to 'mercenary soldiers' is not accurate. The British army, needing to expand rapidly at the start of the war with France, was supplemented with regiments formed of men recruited on the continent from French emigrés, Alsatians, Germans, Swiss, etc. They were embodied and paid as soldiers recruited in Britain. What is the purpose of distinguishing these German (and other) troops from other troops in Abercromby's force?

There tends to be a pejorative value attached to the word mercenary, particularly in relation to foreign regiments, as well as foreign contract troops, employed by Britain in the late C18th. Is that intended here? In any case, it seems an unnecessary distinction. JF42 (talk) 10:39, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ralph Abercromby. 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/20170327030730/http://melitensiawth.com/incoming/Index/Melita%20Historica/MH.02(1956-59)/MH.2(1957)2/orig03.pdf to http://melitensiawth.com/incoming/Index/Melita%20Historica/MH.02(1956-59)/MH.2(1957)2/orig03.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:01, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Lodge Canongate Kilwinning, No.2 (Edinburgh).
The image of the building captioned: 'Kilwinning Lodge, Edinburgh' is actually the HQ of the Order of St John Scotland. See: https://www.stjohnscotland.org.uk/the-order/the-order-in-scotland I am not sure if I can, or should, remove the image? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ericthearcher (talk • contribs) 09:27, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Prefix
Hi, I'm happy to discuss the issue here. My thought process is that A) his rank is already in the infobox in the correct "rank" slot and repeating it is unnecessary (see this discussion) and B) I'm really not sure why he has "the right honourable". If you're able to explain why that's completely fine and it should be kept, but a brief look of my own didn't dig up any reason. Thanks, Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 16:57, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

 * Hi there! That is true; it seems to be subjective as per different articles. For instance, Horatio Nelson uses full prefixes and from my understanding, it is the modern-day officers’ articles that don’t use any prefixes. Rt Hon. comes from him being MP for Clackmannanshire. Gaelicbow (talk) 17:32, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I think Governor-General of Trinidad also entitles him to be referred to as Right Honourable. Gaelicbow (talk) 17:33, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeing where it says Rt Hon is for all MPs? Also, I haven't seen much precedent for that prefix in historical MP articles, especially considering he hadn't been an MP for 3 years at the time of his death. Re Nelson, his Rt Hon makes sense to me because it comes from his peerage; if I were a real pedant I would however try and remove the rank from the prefix. Not going through that hassle though! Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 17:35, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Just saw your follow-up comment. Same query for that; does the position confer the honorific upon him even after he has left it? Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 17:40, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Ralph Abercromby


text:
Castor

Castor most commonly refers to:
 * Castor (star), a star in the Gemini constellation
 * Castor, one of the Dioscuri/Gemini twins Castor and Pollux in Greco-Roman mythology

Castor or CASTOR may also refer to:

Science and technology

 * Castor (rocket stage), a family of solid-fuel rocket stages
 * Castor (software), data binding framework for Java
 * CASTOR (nuclear waste), cask for storage and transport of radioactive material
 * CASTOR experiment, "Centauro and Strange Object Research" at CERN
 * CASTOR (spacecraft), proposed space telescope
 * Castor sugar, fine sugar
 * Caster (or Castor), an undriven wheel
 * Caster (or Castor) angle, relevant to a steered wheel

Biology

 * Castor oil plant, plant from which castor bean grows
 * Castor oil, oil of the castor bean
 * Castor wax, produced from castor oil
 * Castor, a genus name of the beaver
 * Castoreum, natural scent derived from the beaver

Ancient

 * Castor of Rhodes, Greek grammarian and rhetorician
 * Drusus the Younger (13 BC – 23 CE), Roman consul, son of the Emperor Tiberius, nicknamed "Castor"
 * Antonius Castor, ancient botanist
 * Saint Castor, the name of several Christian saints
 * Castor of Apt (died c. 420), French bishop of Apt
 * Castor of Karden (died c. 400), German priest and hermit

Modern

 * Castor Cantero (1918–?), Paraguayan football player
 * Castor McCord (1907–1963), American jazz saxophonist
 * Castor (footballer) (born 1979), Edmilson Ferreira, Brazilian footballer

Surname

 * Betty Castor (born 1941), American educator and politician
 * Brian Castor (1889–1979), English cricketer
 * Bruce Castor (born 1961), American lawyer and politician
 * George A. Castor (1855–1906), American politician
 * Helen Castor (born 1968), English historian
 * Jean-Victor Castor (born 1962), French politician
 * Jimmy Castor (1940–2012), American musician
 * Kathy Castor (born 1966), American politician
 * Stacey Castor (1968–2016), American murderer
 * Steve Castor (born 1972/1973), American lawyer

Fiction

 * Castor Oyl, fictional character in the Popeye cartoons
 * Castor Troy, fictional character in the 1997 movie Face/Off, portrayed by Nicolas Cage and John Travolta
 * Castor, fictional character in the video game Spartan: Total Warrior
 * Lord Castor, fictional character in the 2007 movie The Harpy
 * Castor, fictional character in Tron: Legacy, portrayed by Michael Sheen
 * "Castor, Gobernador" fictional character in The Courts of the Morning by John Buchan
 * "Castor Wilds" fictional location in The Legend of Zelda: The Minish Cap by Nintendo
 * "Castor", fictional persona in the video game Persona 3. Castor is used by one of the playable characters, Shinjiro Aragaki

Places

 * Castor, Alberta, Canada
 * Queue de Castor River, Eeyou Istchee Baie-James, Jamésie, Nord-du-Québec, Canada
 * Rivière aux Castors Noirs, river in Quebec, Canada
 * Castor River (Ontario), Ontario, Canada
 * Castor, Louisiana, Louisiana, United States
 * Castor Creek, Louisiana, United States
 * Castor River (Missouri), United-States
 * Castor (mountain), in the Pennine Alps on the border between Switzerland and Italy
 * Castor Bay, Auckland, New Zealand
 * Castor, Cambridgeshire, England
 * Castor Temple, a summit in the Grand Canyon, United States
 * Castor, an old name for Caistor St. Edmund, Norfolk, England
 * Castor (crater) on Saturn's small moon Janus

Other uses

 * Castor (band), American rock band
 * Castor (cloth), a woollen fabric
 * Castor (trucks), a brand used by Swedish truck manufacturers Tidaholm in the 1910s
 * Castor Cracking Group, Swedish music group
 * HMS Castor, the name of more than one ship of the British Royal Navy
 * Castor (1782 ship), a vessel launched in 1782 that made one voyage to Bengal for the British East India Company and that was last listed in 1808.
 * Castor gloves, gloves made from the skin of lambs or deer
 * Castor hat
 * Project Castor, a set of male clones in the TV series Orphan Black
 * Castore (brand), British sportswear and athletic clothing company

title: Castor


text:
Crop circle

A crop circle, crop formation, or corn circle is a pattern created by flattening a crop, usually a cereal. The term was first coined in the early 1980s. Crop circles have been described as all falling "within the range of the sort of thing done in hoaxes" by Taner Edis, professor of physics at Truman State University. Although obscure natural causes or alien origins of crop circles are suggested by fringe theorists, there is no scientific evidence for such explanations, and all crop circles are consistent with human causation.

The number of reports of crop circles has substantially increased since the 1970s. There has been scant scientific study of them. Circles in the United Kingdom are not distributed randomly across the landscape but appear near roads, areas of medium to dense population, and cultural heritage monuments, such as Stonehenge or Avebury. In 1991, two hoaxers, Doug Bower and Dave Chorley, took credit for having created many circles throughout England after one of their circles was described by an investigator as impossible for human beings to make.

Formations are usually created overnight, although some are reported to have appeared during the day. In contrast to crop circles or crop formations, archaeological remains can cause cropmarks in the fields in the shapes of circles and squares, but they do not appear overnight, and they are always in the same places every year. Nearly half of all crop circles found in the UK in 2003 were located within a 15 km radius of the Avebury stone circles.

Before the 20th century
A 1678 news pamphlet The Mowing-Devil: or, Strange News Out of Hartfordshire is claimed by some crop circle devotees to be the first depiction of a crop circle. Crop circle researcher Jim Schnabel does not consider it to be a historical precedent because it describes the stalks as being cut rather than bent (see folklore section).

In 1686, an English naturalist, Robert Plot, reported on rings or arcs of mushrooms (see fairy rings) in The Natural History of Stafford-Shire and proposed air flows from the sky as a cause. In 1991, meteorologist Terence Meaden linked this report with modern crop circles, a claim that has been compared with those made by Erich von Däniken.

An 1880 letter to the editor of Nature by amateur scientist John Rand Capron describes how several circles of flattened crops in a field were formed under suspicious circumstances and possibly caused by "cyclonic wind action", stating "as viewed from a distance, circular spots (...) they all presented much the same character, viz, a few standing stalks as a centre, some prostrate stalks with their heads arranged pretty evenly in a direction forming a circle round the centre, and outside there a circular wall of stalks which had not suffered".

20th century
In 1932, archaeologist E. C. Curwen observed four dark rings in a field at Stoughton Down near Chichester, but could examine only one: "a circle in which the barley was 'lodged' or beaten down, while the interior area was very slightly mounded up."

In 1963, Patrick Moore described a crater in a potato field in Wiltshire that he considered was probably caused by an unknown meteoric body. In nearby wheat fields, there were several circular and elliptical areas where the wheat had been flattened. There was evidence of "spiral flattening". He thought they could be caused by air currents from the impact, since they led towards the crater. Astronomer Hugh Ernest Butler observed similar craters and said they were likely caused by lightning strikes.

During the 1960s, there were many reports of UFO sightings and circular formations in swamp reeds and sugarcane fields in Tully, Queensland, Australia, and in Canada. For example, on 8 August 1967, three circles were found in a field in Duhamel, Alberta, Canada; Department of National Defence investigators concluded that it was artificial but couldn't say who made them or how. The most famous case is the 1966 Tully "saucer nest", when a farmer said he witnessed a saucer-shaped craft rise 30 or 40 ft from a swamp and then fly away. On investigating he found a nearly circular area 32 ft long by 25 ft wide where the grass was flattened in clockwise curves to water level within the circle, and the reeds had been uprooted from the mud. The local police officer, the Royal Australian Air Force, and the University of Queensland concluded that it was most probably caused by natural causes, like a down draught, a willy-willy (dust devil), or a waterspout. In 1973, G.J. Odgers, Director of Public Relations, Department of Defence (Air Office), wrote to a journalist that the "saucer" was probably debris lifted by the causing willy-willy.

British pranksters Doug Bower and Dave Chorley say they started creating crop circles in British cornfields in 1978, inspired by the Tully "saucer nest" case.

The first film to depict a geometric crop circle, in this case created by super-intelligent ants, is the 1974 science-fiction film Phase IV. The film has been cited as a possible inspiration or influence on the pranksters who started this phenomenon.

Since the 1960s, there has been a surge of UFOlogists in Wiltshire, and there were rumours of "saucer nests" appearing in the area, but they were never photographed. There are other pre-1970s reports of circular formations, especially in Australia and Canada, but they were always simple circles, which could have been caused by whirlwinds. In Fortean Times David Wood reported that in 1940 he had already made crop circles near Gloucestershire using ropes. In 1997, the Oxford English Dictionary recorded the earliest usage of the term "crop circles" in a 1988 issue of Journal of Meteorology, referring to a BBC film. The coining of the term "crop circle" is attributed to Colin Andrews in the late 1970s or early 1980s.

The majority of reports of crop circles have appeared and spread since the late 1970s as many circles began appearing throughout the English countryside. This phenomenon became widely known in the late 1980s, after the media started to report crop circles in Hampshire and Wiltshire. After Bower's and Chorley's 1991 statement that they were responsible for many of them, circles started appearing all over the world. To date, approximately 10,000 crop circles have been reported internationally, from locations such as the former Soviet Union, the United Kingdom, Japan, the U.S., and Canada. Skeptics note a correlation between crop circles, recent media coverage, and the absence of fencing and/or anti-trespassing legislation.

Although farmers expressed concern at the damage caused to their crops, local response to the appearance of crop circles was often enthusiastic, with locals taking advantage of the increase of tourism and visits from scientists, crop circle researchers, and individuals seeking spiritual experiences. The market for crop circle interest consequently generated bus or helicopter tours of circle sites, walking tours, T-shirts, and book sales.

21st century
Since the start of the 21st century, crop formations have increased in size and complexity, with some featuring as many as 2,000 different shapes and some incorporating complex mathematical and scientific characteristics.

The researcher Jeremy Northcote found that crop circles in the UK in 2002, were not spread randomly across the landscape. They tended to appear near roads, areas of medium-to-dense population, and cultural heritage monuments such as Stonehenge or Avebury. He found that they always appeared in areas that were easy to access. This suggests strongly that these crop circles were more likely to be caused by intentional human action than by paranormal activity. Another strong indication of that theory was that inhabitants of the zone with the most circles had a historical tendency for making large-scale formations, including stone circles such as Stonehenge, earthen mounds such as Silbury Hill, long barrows such as West Kennet Long Barrow, and white horses in chalk hills.

Bower and Chorley
In 1991, two self-professed pranksters, Doug Bower and Dave Chorley, made headlines by claiming that it was they who started the phenomenon in 1978 with the use of simple tools consisting of a plank of wood, rope, and a baseball cap fitted with a loop of wire to help them walk in straight lines. To prove their case they made a circle in front of journalists; a "cereologist" (advocate of paranormal explanations of crop circles), Pat Delgado, examined the circle and declared it authentic before it was revealed that it was a hoax. Inspired by Australian crop circle accounts from 1966, Bower and Chorley claimed to be responsible for all circles made prior to 1987, and for more than 200 crop circles in 1978–1991 (with 1,000 other circles not being made by them). Writing in Physics World, Richard Taylor of the University of Oregon said that "the pictographs they created inspired a second wave of crop artists. Far from fizzling out, crop circles have evolved into an international phenomenon, with hundreds of sophisticated pictographs now appearing annually around the globe."

Art and business
After reports of simple circles in the 1970s, increasingly complex geometric designs have been created by anonymous artists, in some cases to attract tourists to an area.

Since the early 1990s, the UK arts collective Circlemakers, founded by Rod Dickinson and John Lundberg, and subsequently including Wil Russell and Rob Irving, has been creating crop circles in the UK and around the world as part of its art practice and also for commercial clients.

The Led Zeppelin Boxed Set that was released on 7 September 1990, along with the remasters of the first boxed set, as well as the second boxed set, all feature an image of a crop circle that appeared in East Field in Alton Barnes, Wiltshire.

On the night of 11–12 July 1992, a crop-circle-making competition with a prize of £3,000 (funded in part by the Arthur Koestler Foundation) was held in Berkshire. The winning entry was produced by three Westland Helicopters engineers, using rope, PVC pipe, a plank, string, a telescopic device and two stepladders. According to Rupert Sheldrake, the competition was organised by him and John Michell and "co-sponsored by The Guardian and The Cerealogist". The prize money came from PM, a German magazine. Sheldrake wrote that "The experiment was conclusive. Humans could indeed make all the features of state-of-the-art crop formations at that time. Eleven of the twelve teams made more or less impressive formations that followed the set design."

In 2002, Discovery Channel commissioned five aeronautics and astronautics graduate students from MIT to create crop circles of their own, aiming to duplicate some of the features claimed to distinguish "real" crop circles from the known fakes such as those created by Bower and Chorley. The creation of the circle was recorded and used in the Discovery Channel documentary Crop Circles: Mysteries in the Fields.

In 2009, The Guardian reported that crop circle activity had been waning around Wiltshire, in part because makers preferred creating promotional crop circles for companies that paid well for their efforts.

A video sequence used in connection with the opening of the 2012 Summer Olympics in London showed two crop circles in the shape of the Olympic rings. Another Olympic crop circle was visible to passengers landing at nearby Heathrow Airport before and during the Games.

A 3 ha crop circle depicting the emblem of the Star Wars Rebel Alliance was created in California in December 2017 by a father and his 11-year-old son as a spaceport for X-wing fighters.

Legal implications
In 1992, Gábor Takács and Róbert Dallos, both then aged 17, were the first people to face legal action after creating a crop circle. Takács and Dallos, of the St. Stephen Agricultural Technicum, a high school in Hungary specializing in agriculture, created a 36 m diameter crop circle in a wheat field near Székesfehérvár, 69 km southwest of Budapest, on 8 June 1992. In September, the pair appeared on Hungarian TV and exposed the circle as a hoax, showing photos of the field before and after the circle was made. As a result, Aranykalász Co., the owners of the land, sued the teens for 630,000 Ft (~$3,000 USD) in damages. The presiding judge ruled that the students were only responsible for the damage caused in the circle itself, amounting to about 6,000 Ft (~$30 USD), and that 99% of the damage to the crops was caused by the thousands of visitors who flocked to Székesfehérvár following the media's promotion of the circle. The fine was eventually paid by the TV show, as were the students' legal fees.

In 2000, Matthew Williams became the first man in the UK to be arrested for causing criminal damage after making a crop circle near Devizes. In November 2000, he was fined £100 plus £40 in costs. , no one else has been successfully prosecuted in the UK for criminal damage caused by creating crop circles.

Creation
The scientific consensus on crop circles is that they are constructed by human beings as hoaxes, advertising, or art. The most widely known method for a person or group to construct a crop formation is to tie one end of a rope to an anchor point and the other end to a board which is used to crush the plants. It is also possible to bend grass without breaking it, if it has recently rained—a method that was used to create crop circles in Hungary in 1992. Skeptics of the paranormal point out that all characteristics of crop circles are fully compatible with their being made by hoaxers.

Bower and Chorley confessed in 1991 to making the first crop circles in southern England. When some people refused to believe them, they deliberately added straight lines and squares to show that they could not have natural causes. In a copycat effect, increasingly complex circles started appearing in many countries around the world, including fractal figures. Physicists have suggested that the most complex formations might be made with the help of GPS and lasers. In 2009, a circle formation was made over the course of three consecutive nights and was apparently left unfinished, with some half-made circles.

The main criticism of alleged non-human creation of crop circles is that while evidence of these origins, besides eyewitness testimonies, is essentially absent, some are definitely known to be the work of human pranksters, and others can be adequately explained as such. There have been cases in which researchers declared crop circles to be "the real thing", only to be confronted with the people who created the circle and documented the fraud, like Bower and Chorley and tabloid Today hoaxing Pat Delgado, the Wessex Sceptics and Channel 4's Equinox hoaxing Terence Meaden, or a friend of a Canadian farmer hoaxing a field researcher of the Canadian Crop Circle Research Network. In his 1995 book The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark, Carl Sagan concludes that crop circles were created by Bower and Chorley and their copycats, and speculates that UFOlogists willingly ignore the evidence for hoaxing so they can keep believing in an extraterrestrial origin of the circles. Many others have demonstrated how complex crop circles can be created. Scientific American published an article by Matt Ridley, who started making crop circles in northern England in 1991. He wrote about how easy it is to develop techniques using simple tools that can easily fool later observers. He reported on "expert" sources such as The Wall Street Journal who had been easily fooled, and mused about why people want to believe supernatural explanations for phenomena that are not yet explained. Methods of creating a crop circle are now well documented on the Internet.

Some crop formations are paid for by companies who use them as advertising. Many crop circles show human symbols, like the heart and arrow symbol of love, and stereotyped alien faces.

Hoaxers have been caught in the process of making new circles, such as in 2004 in the Netherlands (see more cases in legal implications section above).

Advocates of non-human causes discount on-site evidence of human involvement as attempts to discredit the phenomena. Some even argue a conspiracy theory, with governments planting evidence of hoaxing to muddle the origins of the circles. When Ridley wrote negative articles in newspapers, he was accused of spreading "government disinformation" and of working for the UK military intelligence service MI5. Ridley responded by noting that many cereologists make good livings from selling books and providing high-priced personal tours through crop fields, and he claimed that they have vested interests in rejecting what is by far the most likely explanation for the circles.

In science magazines from the 1980s and 1990s, for example Science Illustrated, one could read reports suggesting that the plants were bent by something that could be microwave radiation, rather than broken by physical impact. The magazines also contained serious reports of the absence of human influence and measurement of unusual radiation. Today, this is considered to be pseudoscience, while at the time it was subject of serious research. At that time, it was also more likely that an unknown factor was behind the incidents, not least seen in light of the fact that GPS was not available to the public.

Related art
Patterns similar to crop circles can also be made in snow, by using skis, snow shoes or just walking with ordinary shoes.

Patterns similar to crop circles can also be made in sand.

Images can be made in forests by cutting trees, especially in areas with snow. Celebrating the Olympic Games in Lillehammer, Norway in 1994, a 360 m tall stylised image of an Olympic torch runner was made in a forest close to one of the arenas.

Weather
It has been suggested that crop circles may be the result of extraordinary meteorological phenomena ranging from freak tornadoes to ball lightning, but there is no evidence of any crop circle being created by any of these causes.

In 1880, an amateur scientist, John Rand Capron, wrote a letter to the editor of journal Nature about some circles in crops and blamed them on a recent storm, saying their shape was "suggestive of some cyclonic wind action".

In 1980, Terence Meaden, a meteorologist and physicist, proposed that the circles were caused by whirlwinds whose course was affected by southern England hills. As circles became more complex, Terence had to create increasingly complex theories, blaming an electromagneto-hydrodynamic "plasma vortex". The meteorological theory became popular, and it was even referenced in 1991 by physicist Stephen Hawking who said that, "Corn circles are either hoaxes or formed by vortex movement of air". The weather theory suffered a serious blow in 1991, but Hawking's point about hoaxes was supported when Bower and Chorley stated that they had been responsible for making all those circles. By the end of 1991 Meaden conceded that those circles that had complex designs were made by hoaxers.

Paranormal

Since becoming the focus of widespread media attention in the 1980s, crop circles have been the subject of speculation by various paranormal, ufological, and anomalistic investigators, ranging from proposals that they were created by bizarre meteorological phenomena to messages from extraterrestrial beings. There has also been speculation that crop circles have a relation to ley lines.

Some paranormal advocates think that crop circles are caused by ball lightning and that the patterns are so complex that they have to be controlled by some entity. Some proposed entities are: Gaia asking to stop global warming and human pollution; God; supernatural beings (for example Indian devas); the collective minds of humanity through a proposed "quantum field"; and extraterrestrial beings.

Responding to local beliefs that "extraterrestrial beings" in UFOs were responsible for crop circles appearing, the Indonesian National Institute of Aeronautics and Space (LAPAN) described crop circles as "man-made". Thomas Djamaluddin, research professor of astronomy and astrophysics at LAPAN stated, "We have come to agree that this 'thing' cannot be scientifically proven." Among others, paranormal enthusiasts, ufologists, and anomalistic investigators have offered hypothetical explanations that have been criticised as pseudoscientific by sceptical groups and scientists, including the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry. No credible evidence of extraterrestrial origin has been presented.

Animal activity
In 2009, the attorney general for the island state of Tasmania stated that Australian wallabies had been found creating crop circles in fields of opium poppies, which are grown legally for medicinal use, after consuming some of the opiate-laden poppies and running in circles.

Changes to crops
A small number of scientists (physicist Eltjo Haselhoff, the late biophysicist William Levengood) have found differences between the crops inside the circles and outside them, citing this as evidence they were not man made.

Levengood published papers in journal Physiologia Plantarum in 1994 and 1999. In his 1994 paper he found that certain deformities in the grain inside the circles were correlated to the position of the grain inside the circle. In 1996 sceptic Joe Nickell objected that correlation is not causation, raised several objections to Levengood's methods and assumptions, and said, "Until his work is independently replicated by qualified scientists doing 'double-blind' studies and otherwise following stringent scientific protocols, there seems no need to take seriously the many dubious claims that Levengood makes, including his similar ones involving plants at alleged 'cattle mutilation' sites." Nickell also criticises Levengood for using circular logic, stating: "There is, in fact, no satisfactory evidence that a single “genuine” (i.e., vortex-produced) crop-circle exists, so Levengood’s reasoning is circular: Although there are no guaranteed genuine formations on which to conduct research, the research supposedly proves the genuineness of the formations."

Magnetism
In 2000, Colin Andrews, who had researched crop circles for 17 years, stated that while he believed 80% were man-made, he thought the remaining circles, with less elaborate designs, could be explained by a three-degree shift in the Earth's magnetic field, that creates a current that "electrocutes" the crops, causing them to flatten and form the circle.

Folklore
Researchers of crop circles have linked modern crop circles to old folkloric tales to support the claim that they are not artificially produced. Crop circles are culture dependent: they appear mostly in developed and secularised Western countries where people are receptive to New Age beliefs, including Japan, but they do not appear at all in other zones, such as Muslim countries.

Fungi can cause circular areas of crop to die, probably the origin of tales of "fairie rings". Tales also mention balls of light many times but never in relation to crop circles.

A 17th-century English woodcut called the Mowing-Devil depicts the devil with a scythe mowing (cutting) a circular design in a field of oats. The pamphlet containing the image states that the farmer, disgusted at the wage demanded by his mower for his work, insisted that he would rather have "the devil himself" perform the task. Crop circle researcher Jim Schnabel does not consider this to be a historical precedent for crop circles because the stalks were cut down, not bent. The circular form indicated to the farmer that it had been caused by the devil.

In the 1948 German story Die zwölf Schwäne (The Twelve Swans), a farmer every morning finds a circular ring of flattened grain in his field. After several attempts, his son sees twelve princesses disguised as swans, who take off their disguises and dance in the field. Crop rings produced by fungi may have inspired such tales, since folklore considers that these rings are created by dancing wolves or fairies.

title: Crop circle


text:
VT100

The VT100 is a video terminal, introduced in August 1978 by Digital Equipment Corporation (DEC). It was one of the first terminals to support ANSI escape codes for cursor control and other tasks, and added a number of extended codes for special features like controlling the status lights on the keyboard. This led to rapid uptake of the ANSI standard, which became the de facto standard for hardware video terminals and later terminal emulators.

The VT100 series, especially the VT102, was extremely successful in the market, and made DEC the leading terminal vendor at the time. The VT100 series was replaced by the VT200 series starting in 1983, which proved equally successful. Ultimately, over six million terminals in the VT series were sold, based largely on the success of the VT100.

Description
DEC's first video terminal was the VT05 (1970), succeeded by the VT50 (1974), and soon upgraded to the VT52 (1975). The VT52 featured a text display with 80 columns and 24 rows, bidirectional scrolling, and a custom control protocol that allowed the cursor to be moved about the screen. These "smart terminals" were a hit due both to their capabilities and to their ability to be run over inexpensive serial links, rather than custom proprietary connections as in the case of systems like the IBM 3270, which generally required expensive controllers for distributed applications. In contrast, "dumb terminals" or "glass teletypes" like the ADM-3A (1976) lacked advanced features such as full cursor addressability, and competed mostly on lowest possible hardware cost.

The VT100 was introduced in August 1978, replacing the VT50/VT52 family. Like the earlier models, it communicated with its host system over serial lines at a minimum speed of 50 bit/s, but increased the maximum speed to 19,200 bit/s, double that of the VT52. The terminal provided an option for "smooth scrolling", whereby displayed lines of text were moved gradually up or down the screen to make room for new lines, instead of advancing in sudden "jumps". This made it easier to scan or read the text, although it somewhat slowed down the maximum data rate.

The major internal change was the control protocol. Unlike the VT50/52's proprietary cursor control language, the VT100 was based on the newly emerging ANSI X3.64 standard for command codes. At the time, some computer vendors had suggested that the new standard was beyond the state of the art and could not be implemented at a reasonable price. The introduction of low-cost microprocessors and the ever-falling cost of computer memory offered greatly expanded capabilities, and the VT100 used the new Intel 8080 as its internal processor. In addition, the VT100 provided backwards compatibility for VT52-compatible software, by also supporting the older control sequences. Other improvements beyond the VT52 included a 132-column mode, and a variety of "graphic renditions" including blinking, bolding, reverse video, underlining, and lines of double-sized or double-width characters. The VT100 also introduced an additional box-drawing character set containing various pseudographics that allowed the drawing of on-screen forms.

All configuration setup of the VT100 was accomplished using interactive displays presented on the screen; the setup data was stored in non-volatile memory within the terminal. Maintainability was also significantly improved, since a VT100 could be quickly dismantled into replaceable modules.

The VT100's internal layout can be split into two boards for functionality, not including the VT100's optional boards you can purchase. There is a board called the video monitor board which is used for things like adjusting the CRT on the terminal itself. This board is responsible for adjusting the CRT in the case that the electron beam is offset. The terminal controller board is what handles the terminal logic, and includes a multitude of chips such as DEC's rebranding of the Intel 8080.

In 1983, the VT100 was replaced by the more powerful VT200 series terminals such as the VT220.

Options
The VT100 has various third party and first party boards designed to enhance the capabilities of the device. Most notable of these from DEC themselves are the VT1XX-AB (Advanced Video Option) and the VT1XX-AA (20 mA Current Loop Option). The cards' capabilities and existence are described in Chapter 4 of the VT100 User Guide.

Variants

The VT100 was the first of Digital's terminals to be based on an industry-standard microprocessor, the Intel 8080. Options could be added to the terminal to support an external printer, additional graphic renditions, and more character memory. The last option, known as the "Advanced Video Option" or AVO, allowed the terminal to support a full 24 lines of text in 132-column mode, increasing from the 14 lines of the unexpanded model when used in 132-column mode. The VT100 became a platform on which Digital constructed several related hardware products.

The VT101 and VT102 were cost-reduced, non-expandable follow-on versions. The VT101 was essentially a base-model VT100, while the VT102 came standard with the AVO and serial printer port options pre-installed. The VT105 contained a simple graphics subsystem known as waveform graphics which was mostly compatible with same system in the earlier VT55. This system allowed two mathematical functions to be drawn to the screen superimposed over the normal text display, allowing text and graphics to be mixed to produce charts and similar output. The VT125 added an implementation of the byte-efficient Remote Graphic Instruction Set (ReGIS), which used custom ANSI codes to send graphics commands to the terminal, rather than requiring the terminal to be set to a separate less-efficient graphics mode like the VT105.

The VT131 added block mode support, allowing a form to be sent to the terminal and filled in locally by the user, and then sending the contents of the fields in the form back to the host when the form is filled in.

The VT100 form factor left significant physical space in the case for expansion, and DEC used this to produce several all-in-one stand-alone minicomputer systems. The VT103 included a cardcage and 4×4 (8-slot) Q-Bus backplane, sufficient to configure a small 16-bit LSI-11 microcomputer system within the case, and supported an optional dual TU58 DECtape II block-addressable cartridge tape drive  which could be used like a very slow disk drive. The VT180 (codenamed "Robin") added a single-board microcomputer using a Zilog Z80 to run the CP/M operating system. The VT278 (DECmate) added a small PDP-8 processor, allowing the terminal to run Digital's WPS-8 word processing software.

title: VT100


text:
Meteor Crater

Meteor Crater, or Barringer Crater, is an impact crater about 37 mi east of Flagstaff and 18 mi west of Winslow in the desert of northern Arizona,  United States. The site had several earlier names, and fragments of the meteorite are officially called the Canyon Diablo Meteorite, after the adjacent Canyon Diablo.

Meteor Crater lies at an elevation of 1719 m above sea level. It is about 1200 m in diameter, some 170 m deep, and is surrounded by a rim that rises 45 m above the surrounding plains. The center of the crater is filled with 210 – of rubble lying above crater bedrock. One of the features of the crater is its squared-off outline, believed to be caused by existing regional jointing (cracks) in the strata at the impact site.

Despite an attempt to make the crater a public landmark, the crater remains privately owned by the Barringer family to the present day through their Barringer Crater Company. The Lunar and Planetary Institute, the American Museum of Natural History, and other science institutes proclaim it to be the "best-preserved meteorite crater on Earth". It was designated a National Natural Landmark in November 1967.

Formation
The crater was created about 50,000 years ago during the Pleistocene epoch, when the local climate on the Colorado Plateau was much cooler and damper. The area was an open grassland dotted with woodlands inhabited by mammoths and giant ground sloths.

The object that excavated the crater was a nickel-iron meteorite about 50 m across. The speed of the impact has been a subject of some debate. Modeling initially suggested that the meteorite struck at up to 20 km/s, but more recent research suggests the impact was substantially slower, at 12.8 km/s. About half of the impactor's bulk is believed to have been vaporized during its descent through the atmosphere. Impact energy has been estimated at 10 megatons TNTe. The meteorite was mostly vaporized upon impact, leaving few remains in the crater.

Since the crater's formation, the rim is thought to have lost 15 – of height at the rim crest as a result of natural erosion. Similarly, the basin of the crater is thought to have roughly 30 m of additional postimpact sedimentation from lake sediments and alluvium. Very few remaining craters are visible on Earth, since many have been erased by erosive geological processes. The relatively young age of Meteor Crater, paired with the dry Arizona climate, has allowed this crater to remain comparatively unchanged since its formation. The lack of erosion that preserved the crater's shape greatly accelerated its groundbreaking recognition as an impact crater from a natural celestial body.

Discovery and investigation
Meteor Crater came to the attention of scientists after American settlers encountered it in the 19th century. The crater was given several early names, including "Coon Mountain", "Coon Butte", "Crater Mountain", "Meteor Mountain," and "Meteor Crater." Daniel M. Barringer was one of the first people to suggest that the crater was produced by a meteorite impact, with the Barringer family filing mining claims and purchasing it and its surroundings in the early 20th century. This led to the crater also being known as "Barringer Crater." Meteorites from the area are called Canyon Diablo meteorites, after Canyon Diablo, Arizona, which was the closest community to the crater in the late 19th century. The canyon also crosses the strewn field, where meteorites from the crater-forming event are found. The crater was initially assumed to have been formed by a volcanic steam explosion; evidence of geologically recent volcanic activity occurs across this part of Arizona – the southeastern edge of the San Francisco volcanic field is only about 20 mi northwest of Meteor Crater.

Albert E. Foote
In 1891, mineralogist Albert E. Foote presented the first scientific paper about the meteorites of Northern Arizona. Several years earlier, Foote had received an iron rock for analysis from a railroad executive. Foote immediately recognized the rock as a meteorite and led an expedition to search and retrieve additional meteorite samples. The team collected samples ranging from small fragments to over 600 lbs. Foote identified several minerals in the meteorites, including microscopic diamonds. His paper to the Association for the Advancement of Science provided the first geological description of Meteor Crater to a scientific community.

Grove Karl Gilbert
In November 1891, Grove Karl Gilbert, chief geologist for the U.S. Geological Survey, investigated the crater and concluded that it was the result of a volcanic steam explosion. Gilbert assumed that, if it were an impact crater, then the volume of the crater, as well as meteoritic material, should still be present in the crater's rim. Gilbert also assumed a large portion of the meteorite should be buried in the crater and that this should generate a large magnetic anomaly. Gilbert's calculations showed that the volume of the crater and the debris on the rim were roughly equivalent, which meant that the mass of the hypothetical impactor was missing. There were also no detectable magnetic anomalies; he argued that the meteorite fragments found on the rim were coincidental or placed there. Gilbert publicized his conclusions in a series of lectures. In 1892, Gilbert would be among the first scientists to propose that the Moon's craters were caused by impact rather than volcanism.

Daniel M. Barringer

In 1903, mining engineer and businessman Daniel M. Barringer suggested that the crater had been produced by the impact of a large iron meteorite. Barringer's company, the Standard Iron Company, staked a mining claim on the land and received a land patent signed by Theodore Roosevelt for 640 acres (1 sq mi, 260 ha) around the center of the crater in 1903.

Barringer had amassed a small fortune as an investor in the successful Commonwealth Mine in Pearce, Cochise County, Arizona. He drew up ambitious plans for the metal he believed was buried under the crater's floor. He estimated from the size of the crater that the meteorite had a mass of 100 million tons. Iron ore of the type found at the crater was valued at the time at US$125/ton, so Barringer was searching for a lode he believed to be worth more than a billion 1903 dollars. "By 1928, Barringer had sunk the majority of his fortune into the crater – $500,000, or roughly $7 million in 2017 dollars."

Barringer's arguments were met with skepticism. At the time, the craters visible on the Moon were thought to be volcanic, and no impact craters were known. He persisted and sought to bolster his theory by locating the remains of the meteorite. At the time of discovery, the surrounding plains were covered with about 30 tons of large, oxidized iron meteorite fragments. This led Barringer to believe that the bulk of the impactor could still be found under the crater floor. Impact physics was poorly understood at the time, and Barringer was unaware that most of the meteorite vaporized on impact. He spent 27 years trying to locate a large deposit of meteoric iron, and drilled to a depth of 419 m, but no significant deposit was ever found.

Barringer was politically well-connected. In 1906, at his request, President Roosevelt authorized the establishment of a post office unconventionally named "Meteor," located at Sunshine, a stop on the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway, 6 mi north of the crater. The Meteor post office closed on April 15, 1912, due to disuse.

In 1929, astronomer F.R. Moulton was employed by the Barringer Crater Company to investigate the physics of the impact event. Moulton concluded that the impactor likely weighed as little as 300,000 tonnes, and that the impact of such a body would have generated enough heat to vaporize the impactor instantly. Daniel M. Barringer died just ten days after the publication of Moulton's second report.

By this time, "the great weight of scientific opinion had swung around to the accuracy of the impact hypothesis ... Apparently an idea, too radical and new for acceptance in 1905, no matter how logical, had gradually grown respectable during the intervening 20 years."

Harvey H. Nininger
Harvey Harlow Nininger was an American meteoriticist and educator, and he revived interest in scientific study of meteorites in the 1930s, and assembled the largest personal collection of meteorites up to that time. While based in Denver, Colorado, Nininger published the first edition of a pamphlet titled "A Comet Strikes the Earth", which described how Meteor Crater formed when an asteroid impacted the Earth. In 1942, Nininger moved his home and business from Denver to the Meteor Crater Observatory, located near the turn-off for Meteor Crater on Route 66. He christened the building the "American Meteorite Museum" and published a number of meteorite and Meteor Crater-related books from the location. He also conducted a wide range of research at the crater, discovering impactite, iron-nickel spherules related to the impact and vaporization of the asteroid, and the presence of many other features, such as half-melted slugs of meteoric iron mixed with melted target rock. Nininger's discoveries were compiled and published in a seminal work, Arizona's Meteorite Crater (1956). Nininger's extensive sampling and fieldwork in the 1930s and 40s contributed significantly to the scientific community's acceptance of the idea that Meteor Crater formed by the impact of an asteroid. Many of his discoveries were later observed at other relatively fresh impact craters, including Henbury and Monturaqui.

Nininger believed that the crater should be a national monument and, in 1948, he successfully petitioned the American Astronomical Society to pass a motion in support of nationalizing the crater by making "the unauthorized - and false - claim that the [Barringers] would be receptive to a fair purchase for the crater." By this time, mining activity at the crater had ceased, and the Barringers were in the process of planning a tourist attraction on the rim of the crater. Nininger was operating the American Meteorite Museum nearby, on Route 66, at the time. Nininger hoped that a public museum could be built on the crater's rim, and that the project might lead to the founding of a federal institute of meteorite research. Offended by Nininger's attempt to nationalize the crater, the Barringer family promptly terminated his exploration rights and ability to conduct further fieldwork at the crater. A few years later, in 1953, the Standard Iron Company was renamed the "Barringer Crater Company," and a private museum was constructed on the crater rim.

Eugene M. Shoemaker

Eugene Merle Shoemaker continued investigations at the crater. A key discovery was the presence in the crater of the minerals coesite and stishovite, rare forms of silica found only where quartz-bearing rocks have been severely shocked by an instantaneous overpressure. Shocked quartz cannot be created by volcanic action; the only known mechanisms of creating it are naturally through lightning or an impact event, or artificially, through a nuclear explosion. In 1960, Edward C. T. Chao and Shoemaker identified coesite at Meteor Crater, adding to the growing body of evidence that the crater was formed from an impact generating extremely high temperatures and pressures. He confirmed what F.R. Moulton and H.H. Nininger already proposed: the impact vaporized the vast majority of the impactor. The pieces of Canyon Diablo meteorite found scattered around the site broke away from the main body before and during the impact. Shoemaker published his conclusions in his 1974 book, the Guidebook to the geology of Meteor Crater, Arizona.

Geologists used the nuclear detonation that created the Sedan crater, and other such craters from the era of atmospheric nuclear testing, to establish upper and lower limits on the kinetic energy of the meteor impactor.

Geology
The impact created an inverted stratigraphy, so that the layers immediately exterior to the rim are stacked in the reverse order to which they normally occur; the impact overturned and inverted the layers to a distance of 1–2 km outward from the crater's edge. Specifically, climbing the rim of the crater from outside, one finds:
 * Coconino Sandstone (sandstone formed 265 million years ago) nearest the top of the rim
 * Toroweap Formation (limestone formed 255 million years ago)
 * Kaibab Formation (dolostone formed 250 million years ago)
 * Moenkopi Formation (mudstone formed 245 million years ago) nearest the outer foot of the rim

Soils around the crater are brown, slightly to moderately alkaline, gravelly or stony loam of the Winona series; on the crater rim and in the crater itself, the Winona is mapped in a complex association with rock outcrop.

Recent history
During the 1960s and 1970s, NASA astronauts trained in the crater to prepare for the Apollo missions to the Moon, and ongoing field training for astronauts continues to this day.

On August 8, 1964, two commercial pilots in a Cessna 150 flew low over the crater. After crossing the rim, they could not maintain level flight. The pilot attempted to circle in the crater to climb over the rim. During the attempted climb out, the aircraft stalled, crashed, and caught fire. The plane is commonly reported to have run out of fuel, but this is incorrect. Both occupants were severely injured, but survived. A small portion of the wreckage not removed from the crash site remains visible.

In 2006, a project called METCRAX (for METeor CRAter eXperiment) investigated "the diurnal buildup and breakdown of basin temperature inversions or cold-air pools and the associated physical and dynamical processes accounting for their evolving structure and morphology."

Tourist attraction
Meteor Crater is a popular tourist destination with roughly 270,000 visitors per year. The crater is owned by a family company, the Barringer Crater Company. Meteor Crater is an important educational and research site. It was used to train Apollo astronauts and continues to be an active training site for astronauts. The Meteor Crater Visitor Center sits on the north rim of the crater. It features interactive exhibits and displays about meteorites and asteroids, space, the Solar System, and comets including the American Astronaut Wall of Fame and such artifacts on display as an Apollo boilerplate command module (BP-29), a 1406 lb meteorite found in the area, and meteorite specimens from Meteor Crater that can be touched. Formerly known as the Museum of Astrogeology, the Visitor Center includes a Discovery Center & Space Museum, a movie theater, a gift shop, and observation areas with views inside the rim of the crater. Guided tours of the rim are offered daily, weather permitting.

title: Meteor Crater


text:
User:Ellmist

 * Name: Brian Schack
 * Email: spon0112 (at sign) morehead (hyphen) st (period) edu
 * AIM: Ellmist2000
 * ICQ: 64384436
 * MSN: spon0112 (at sign) morehead (hyphen) st (period) edu
 * Yahoo: Ellmist2000

My other user pages:
 * BerliOS-OpenFacts: Ellmist
 * CapitanCook: TheEllmist
 * Memorial Wiki: Ellmist
 * Meta-Wikipedia: Ellmist
 * Project SourceForge: Ellmist
 * Quicksilver Metaweb: Ellmist
 * Wikibooks: Ellmist
 * Wikiquote: Ellmist
 * Wikitravel: Ellmist
 * Wiktionary: Ellmist

Selected contributions

 * AmphetaDesk
 * AmphetaRate
 * Animorphs (book series)
 * Animorphs (television series)
 * AirPort
 * Address Book
 * BBEdit
 * CyberDuck
 * Edmark
 * Escape Velocity (game)
 * iSight
 * Marco (Animorphs)
 * Mnemonic
 * NewsFire
 * Omni Group
 * Online audio store
 * Opsound
 * Quicksilver (software)
 * StuffIt Expander
 * Zoombinis

title: User:Ellmist