text:
Weiach

Weiach is a municipality in the district of Dielsdorf in the canton of Zürich in Switzerland.

History
Weiach is first mentioned in 1271. It has belonged to Swiss Confederation since 1424. Since 1962 there has been a gravel industry located in Weiach. On 14 November 1990, Alitalia Flight 404 crashed into Stadlerberg Mountain near Weiach while attempting to land at Zurich Airport. The crash, which was caused by a faulty navigation system, killed all 40 passengers and 6 crew.

Geography
Weiach has an area of 9.5 km2. Of this area, 36.9% is used for agricultural purposes, while 49.5% is forested. Of the rest of the land, 11.7% is settled (buildings or roads) and the remainder (1.9%) is non-productive (rivers, glaciers or mountains).

Weiach (dialect: «Weych») is situated at approximately 390 metres above sea level in the northwestern corner of the Zürich Lowlands («Zuercher Unterland»), at the cantonal boundary between Zürich and Aargau. The River Rhine, flows some 100 meters north of the village and forms the natural border line to Germany, marking the lowest spot in the canton of Zürich (332 meters above sea level).

Population
The Zürich Tax Records (Zürcher Steuerbücher) of 1470 only contains a record of the manor of Weiach. At the time, the village comprised 16 households, with 48 inhabitants over the age of 15 liable to pay tax. Between 1634 and 1760, having been requested to do so by the Zürich authorities, the priests kept detailed records of population size, albeit with sporadic intervals. Later figures have been taken from the following sources: 1790 Werdmüller's Memorabilia Tigurina, 1799 Priests' Inquiry of the Helvetian Government, 1820 Erni's Memorabilia Tigurina, 1827 Lutz's Vollständige Beschreibung des Schweizerlandes. The figure for 1836 is based on the Zürich cantonal census. Figures from 1850 onwards have been taken from the Confederational Census. (The criteria for recording population data have changed considerably over the centuries. Each interpretation can cause the figures to vary considerably. The figures are taken from different sources. For the years 1710 to 1820, data are hardly available.)

Over the centuries, the population size has been closely linked to the profitability of the land, since exports were rare. The resident population oscillated between 500 and 750 persons, making Weiach the largest parish in Neuamt. From the end of the 17th Century onwards, many began to look for work outside Weiach, resulting in emigration. This emigration was often to the United States. Many of the forefathers of Americans with the surname Baumgardner were originally from Weiach.

By the 1960s and 1970s, a few new apartment blocks had been built here and there. In the wake of the agglomeration of Zürich, Weiach became subsumed by the city in the mid 1980s. New residential areas were designated according to the Quartierpläne. This triggered a construction boom, beginning on the edge of Sanzenberg. 30 per cent of the apartments which existed in 2000 had been built in the previous ten years. The population grew by over 35 per cent thanks to the building of 80 new apartment blocks between 1991 and 2000. Never before had so many people lived simultaneously in the parish of Weiach. The start of urbanisation can be seen from the explosion in the number of single person households from 1990 (an increase of 132 per cent).

A large-scale construction project was planned at the end of 2007 to build a further 55 apartment blocks in the Bedmen area. If this goes ahead, the population figure will again pass the 1000 mark.

Demographics
Weiach has a population (as of ) of. , 10.1% of the population was made up of foreign nationals. Over the last 10 years the population has grown at a rate of 6.9%. Most of the population speaks German  (93.6%), with Albanian being second most common ( 1.5%) and Serbo-Croatian being third ( 1.2%).

In the 2007 election the most popular party was the SVP which received 54.8% of the vote. The next three most popular parties were the SPS (12.9%), the CSP (9.4%) and the FDP (8%).

The age distribution of the population is children and teenagers (0–19 years old) make up 26.7% of the population, while adults (20–64 years old) make up 61% and seniors (over 64 years old) make up 12.4%. In Weiach about 80.4% of the population (between age 25-64) have completed either non-mandatory upper secondary education or additional higher education (either university or a Fachhochschule).

Weiach has an unemployment rate of 2.46%. , there were 47 people employed in the primary economic sector and about 17 businesses involved in this sector. 120 people are employed in the secondary sector and there are 16 businesses in this sector. 96 people are employed in the tertiary sector, with 27 businesses in this sector.

title: Weiach


text:
Girl Guide and Girl Scout

A Girl Guide or Girl Scout is a member of a section of some Guiding organisations who is between the ages of 10 and 14. Age limits are different in each organisation. Robert Baden-Powell chose to name his organization for girls "the Girl Guides". In the United States and several East Asian countries the term "Girl Scout" is used instead. Female scouts go under the name of "girl scouts" in many more languages. The two terms are used synonymously within this article.

Girl Guides are organised into units/troops averaging 15–30 girls under guidance of a team of leaders. Units subdivide into patrols of about six Guides and engage in outdoor and special interest activities. Units may affiliate with national and international organisations. Some units, especially in Europe, have been co-educational since the 1970s, allowing boys and girls to work together as Scouts. There are other programme sections for older and younger girls.

Foundation
Following the origin of the Boy Scouts in 1907 many girls took up Scouting. A group of Girl Scouts were prominent at the Crystal Palace Rally in 1909. After Robert Baden-Powell formed The Boy Scouts Association in 1910 he formed the Girl Guides and asked his sister Agnes to look after the Girl Guides organisation. A few years later Baden-Powell's new wife Olave St. Claire Baden-Powell (commonly referred to as "Lady Baden-Powell") became involved and, in 1918, was appointed Chief Guide.

Activities
Most activities are now similar to those of the (Boy) Scouts, but when the movement started two central themes were present: domestic skills and "a kind of practical feminism which embodies physical fitness, survival skills, camping, citizenship training, and career preparation".

Troop
Local groups, called variously units, companies or troops, are the fundamental unit of the Girl Guides. These are run by an adult, normally a woman who is between 18 and 65 years of age. She has responsibility for the girls in her group and plans out activities for the girls as well as leading the meetings. These leaders are supported by assistants. Meetings are held anywhere from weekly to monthly depending on the commitments of the participants and the activities in progress.

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

title: Girl Guide and Girl Scout


text:
Tapper (video game)

Tapper, also known as Root Beer Tapper, is an arcade video game developed by Marvin Glass and Associates and released in 1984 by Bally Midway. Tapper puts the player in the shoes of a bartender who must serve eager, thirsty patrons (before their patience expires ) while collecting empty mugs and tips. It was distributed in Japan by Sega in 1984.

Originally sponsored by Anheuser-Busch, the arcade version features a Budweiser motif. It was intended to be sold to bars, with cabinets sporting a brass rail footrest and drink holders. Early machines had game controllers that were actual Budweiser beer tap handles, which were later replaced by smaller, plastic versions with the Budweiser logo on them. The re-themed Root Beer Tapper followed in 1984, which was developed specifically for arcades because the original version was construed as advertising alcohol to minors.

Gameplay
The controls consist of a four-position joystick and a tap handle. The game screen features four bars, each with a keg at one end and a door at the other. Customers enter through the doors and slowly advance toward the kegs, demanding service. The player controls a bartender who must pour drinks and slide them down the bar for the customers to catch. Pushing the joystick up or down instantly moves the bartender to the keg at the next bar in the chosen direction, with the top and bottom of the screen wrapping around to one another, while pushing left or right causes him to run along the bar where he is stationed. When the tap handle is pulled down, the bartender instantly moves to the keg (if he is not already standing there) and fills a mug; releasing it causes him to slide the mug along the bar.

Customers slide back toward the doors upon catching a full mug, and disappear through the doors if they are close enough. If not, they stop after a certain distance, consume the drink, and resume their advance while sliding the empty mug back toward the keg. Customers occasionally leave tips on the bar, which the player can pick up for bonus points. Collecting a tip causes a group of female dancers to appear for a few seconds, distracting a portion of the customers so that they will stop advancing. However, distracted customers cannot catch drinks, and any customers who are either drinking or being pushed back at the start of the dancers' show will never be distracted.

One life is lost when any of the following occurs:
 * The player fails to catch an empty mug before it falls off the keg end of a bar and breaks.
 * A full mug slides to the door end of a bar without being caught, where it falls and breaks.
 * Any customer reaches the keg end of a bar, whereupon they grab the bartender and slide him across the bar out the door.

Each screen is completed when the bar is completely emptied of customers. The bartender then pours/consumes a drink of his own with humorous results involving the empty mug, such as getting it stuck on his head or stubbing his toe when he tries to kick it. As the game progresses, the customers appear more frequently, move faster along the bar, and are pushed back shorter distances when they catch their drinks. In addition, the maximum number of customers per bar gradually increases until every bar can have up to four customers at a time.

The player proceeds through four levels, each with its own theme and appropriately dressed customers, and must complete a set number of screens to advance from one level to the next. The levels are:

 * 1) A western saloon with cowboys (2 screens)
 * 2) A sports bar with athletes (3 screens)
 * 3) A punk rock bar with punk rockers (4 screens)
 * 4) An outer-space bar with aliens (4 screens)

A bonus round is played after the end of each level, in which six cans of beer (or root beer) are placed on the bar. A masked figure shakes five of the cans, then pounds the bar to shuffle them. Choosing the one unshaken can awards bonus points, while choosing any other results in the bartender being sprayed in the face; in the latter case, the unshaken can flashes briefly to indicate its position.

After completing all four levels, the player returns to the start of the sequence and continues the game at a higher difficulty level.

Music
Music and sound effects for the arcade version of Tapper were created by Rick Hicaro of Marvin Glass & Associates. He used a Synclavier II synthesizer running with custom software written by Richard Ditton. The system interfaced directly to the arcade game system so sounds were true to the capabilities of the hardware.

The game's score includes "Oh! Susanna" (composed by Stephen Foster), "Buffalo Gals" (traditional American folk song), the Budweiser theme, and "Can-Can" by Jacques Offenbach. The rest of the music was written by Rick Hicaro.

Ports

Tapper was ported to the Apple II, Atari 8-bit computers, Atari 5200, Atari 2600, BBC Micro, ColecoVision, Commodore 64, MSX, ZX Spectrum, IBM PC, and Amstrad CPC. Most of the home versions of Tapper featured the Mountain Dew logo, while the ZX Spectrum and Amstrad CPC versions had the Pepsi logo, but they retained the bartender character of the original arcade game instead of the soda jerk in Root Beer Tapper.

The ColecoVision version was released in 1984.

The Root Beer Tapper version also appears on the Midway Legacy Edition Arcade1Up cabinet.

A version for Commodore Amiga has been released in 2023.

Reception
In Japan, Game Machine listed Tapper on their March 15, 1984 issue as being the most-successful table arcade unit of the month, tied with 10-Yard Fight and Vs. Tennis.

Compute!'s Gazette called the Commodore 64 version of Tapper "one of the most addictive games we've seen lately ... not only fun to play, but also immensely challenging, graphically entertaining, and full of action". The magazine stated that "it's a very well-designed strategy game", and concluded that it was "near the top in entertainment value". Sinclair User gave the game a SU Classic award.

Legacy
The art style is almost identical to a previous game called Domino Man, and the following game Timber. In fact, the main character in Timber is a rework of the main character in Tapper. The art is based on Mike Ferris, an artist who taught Scott Morrison art.

Re-releases
Root Beer Tapper has been included in several compilations. It was in the Nintendo 64 version of Midway's Greatest Arcade Hits, Arcade's Greatest Hits: The Midway Collection 2 for the PlayStation, Midway Arcade Treasures for PlayStation 2, Xbox, GameCube, and Microsoft Windows, and Midway Arcade Origins for PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360.

A reinterpretation of the game for mobile devices, Tapper World Tour, was released in 2011.

Clones
Novasoft published a clone in 1984 called Brew Master for the TRS-80 Color Computer. A slightly altered version of Tapper appears as the Milk Bar minigame in Barnyard (2006). A similar version is on the virtual pet website Neopets as one of the minigames for the Altador Cup event.

A clone called Nuka Tapper is included in Fallout 76 as a minigame with Fallout-themed graphics.

In popular culture
Tapper is one of the games included in Disney's 2012 film Wreck-It Ralph and its 2018 sequel Ralph Breaks the Internet with the bartender voiced by Maurice LaMarche. The version of the game featured in both the films is a combination of the Budweiser and rootbeer versions.

High score
Gregory Erway set the tournament world record on June 5, 2005 with a score of 3,162,125 (first 5 men of game). William Rosa set the marathon world record on February 16, 2019 with a score of 14,826,200.

title: Tapper (video game)


text:
Talk:Gaia philosophy/Archive 4

I have been reading web pages on Gaia theory, and the none of them have anything to do older theories about the Earth and the Cosmos, or radical politics ("Gaians), etc. The title for thsi article is misleading.  Why have an article on "Gaia theory", when Gaia theory is not discussed here to any extent? This article orces readers to go to "Gaia theory (biology)"?  In point of fact, the phrase Gaia theory is used nearly exclusively to refer to biological theories by Lovelock, Margulis, et. al. Only on the rarest of occasions does anyone use it to refer to anything else. As such, our article names here are backwards! It is this article which should be about the Gaia biological theories by Lovelock, Margulis.  If someone wants to read about quasi-Gaian theories of other people from previous decades and centuries, that should be on some other page such as "Gaia theory (precedents)". If someone wants to read about radical left-wing political groups, that should not be here either, but rather in the article on Gaians. This article should be about biology, because most English speakers who want to discuss this subject will use this name. RK 01:06 29 Jun 2003 (UTC)

snip

Proposition

Gaia: This is a disambiguation page. The term Gaia may refer to

Gaia (goddess - A Greek and Roman goddeess.

Gaia theory - A group of scientific theories about how life on Earth may regulate the planet's biosphere to make it more hospitable to life. This discusses scientific views on the subject in general, including the views of Drs. James Lovelock, Lynn Margulis, Richard Dawkins, Carl Sagan, etc.

Gaia hypothesis - An article devoted to solely to Dr. James Lovelock's ideas on Gaia theory.

Gaia theory predecessors - A discussion of proto-scientific, mystical and religious views about life on Earth that bear similarity to Gaia theory.

Gaians - A radical political and environmentalist group.

(and other related topics can be added as well. Perhaps Gaia theory in religion, Gaia theory in art, etc.)

Will this work? If not, please propose specific alternatives. RK 19:23 1 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I've just skimmed a bit of discussion, the hypothesis and theory articles and a text that's supposed to be a speach Lovelock game in 1992, but I'm ready to offer my two cents. On the one hand, the distinction between the family of "Gaia theories" and a relatively narrow "hypothesis" meshes well with other language and distinctions I've heard in science, and it's consistent with how I interpret Lovelock's usage of "Gaia theories" in that source I mentioned. I'm also sympathetic to the idea that a theory's intellectual anticedents and historical context are appropriate content for an article about a theory. Generally speaking, I think the appropriateness is a case-by-case thing, depending on how much there is to say and whether readers might be expected to arrive at the article already with an interest and some familiarity with the contextual content (see e.g. DNA which has a long section on Watson, Crick, Franklin and Wilkins' race to the discovery, and which I think only barely belongs there, if it does at all; if it does, I think in large part it's b/c everybody knows there's a tale and a controversy that goes along with DNA). But while I think the Gaia precedents might be successfully argued as appropriate, to me it starts off with a mark against it. I don't know, but I doubt that Lovelock was much inspired or much aware of the ancient folk notions cited as precedents, so I think the relationship of these notions to the modern theories referred to by the term "Gaia theory" is only a rather bold hypothesis.

I think the choice of "precedent" versus "antecedent" hits the matter on the head. The article dares to claim only that these notions preceded the modern ones, but of course, so did the notion that that bees like honey and water flows downhill. The relationship is not being argued for, but sort of insinuated just by its mere placement within the article. I think this vague insinuation could be provocative to a fiercely pro-science and anti-new-agey person, because it looks a little like an effort to coopt and romanticize the Gaia theories and the views of the Gaia theorists by grouping the theories with ideas that are more religeous and cosmological. Personally, I think the current article does this only very mildly, but to be utterly unprovocative, I think it would have to either make a good explicit argument for the relevance of these precedents or it would have to make explicit that this content is there merely because it's interesting and not because a causitive or inspirational relationship is being asserted.

As I said, just my two cents based on a little skimming. 168... 21:08 1 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I just looked at the precendent section of the current version again, and it looks pretty neutral to me. So maybe I was wrong to claim that it could be made utterly unprovocative to those fearful of New Age cooptation. To the extent one wants to cater to these fears (which I share myself a little), I think one might move the section to lower down in the article. It's position up top is a stronger insinuation of relevance than would a position farther down. Putting it up top suggests "you have to know this to understand what Gaia theories are about," which I think would be a tough claim to argue. 168... 21:18 1 Jul 2003 (UTC)

 * thanks for your comments. You should be aware that the current version is the result of a merge RK and I made of two other articles. I did it quickly to be sure nothing would be lost in the disapperance of the other article. Hence, it is certainly not in the right order at all, and contain a lot of redundancies. I think the precedents should be kept, otherwise this article will just show a scientific point of view only, when there is much more about Gaia than just science. I will be glad that you later edit it to make it more proper and less controversial. Anthere

You're welcome. I find myself with another comment to make after reading an early version of this article. I notice that it described "Gaia theory" as a much broader category of theory than just the quantitative and mechanistic descendants of Lovelock's initial hypothesis. This suggested to me that "Gaia thoery" actually means different things to different people: Among Earth modellers like Lovelock it seems to refer only to the mechanistic theories, but within the subculture of philosophically-minded non-scientists who embraced Lovelock's idea (which I suppose includes the author of that earlier version of the article) maybe it's commonly used to refer also to theories that suppose more spiritual and/or unmeasurable interactions. (Sorry if I'm going on about something that was obvious long ago to everybody else). Anyway, if my inference is correct, then the term has two usages and so to me the more "spiritual" stuff could justifiably be claimed to deserve a place in an article with "Gaia theory" as its title, because one popular meaning of it covers such ideas.

That said, if the two meanings share little in common and if they are used only in distinct contexts by distinct groups of people (like "printer" is used among computer-store employees and like "printer" is used by publishers as they look over the galley-proofs of a book or magazine), then to me this line of thinking could as well justify writing a separate article for each meaning (Gaia theory (mechanistic) and Gaia theory (social/spiritual)?). Depending on how much there is to say about each meaning of the term, one might want two articles, each of which includes a succinct summary of the other meaning; or one might want a single article that squeezes both meanings in. One might want two articles that make no reference to the other meaning, if individual readers can't reasonably be expected to be curious to learn at least a little about both (as some fraction of people who come to DNA intending to learn about it's scientific meaning might be curious also to learn of its controversial discovery). But I think an expectation of curiosity about both meanings is reasonable for people coming to Gaia theory.

Part and parcel of this interpretation I'm describing is that to make everybody happy, one would need sat explicitly in the article that "Gaia theory" has two meanings. Otherwise, people will fight over certain content as if it were ruining or irrelevant to their meaning, as may be what's going on now. Again though, I'm just assuming "Gaia theory" has two common meanings. I don't know that it does. 168... 23:52 1 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Hum,

James Kirschner in Scientists on Gaia identified several levels of Hypothesis. Perhaps can this be updated with recent works as well

a weak level, which encompass Influential Gaia, where biota influence certain aspects of the abiotic world, e.g. temperature and atmosphere, Co-evolutionary Gaia where biota influence their abiotic environment, and that environment in turn influences the biota by Darwinian process.

Margulis Theory, which states it is homeorhetic.

Most of these are generally accepted

The standard level is roughly the current lovelock hypothesis, that is just homeostasis. This is acceptable by many or some scientists

The strong level may be the teleological Gaia, where atmosphere is kept in homeostasis by and for the biosphere, and what has been called optimizing Gaia biota manipulate their physical environment to creat optimal conditions

This was the level at which Lovelock and Margulis placed a lot of the comment on the initial hypothesis. Lovelock was deeply attacked for that hypothesis, hence he backed up. Ultimately, strong hypothesis go as far as supporting Gaia as Goddess Gaia, a sort of divine consciousness. These strong claims also existed before Lovelock. They found strength in Lovelock work, and developped in more mystical modern positions.

For the weak and the strong positions, there are predecessors and moderns.

hence, there is a bit more than just 2 meanings in the Gaia Theories. I see not how this could really be separated from this article.

I also think it would be wrong to separate politics from mysticism as these two are very related in this case. Hence, probably, what the author of the previous version meant. A "science" version where could be hinted social and politics aspects, as well as a more global version, where the theories themselves would be grossly outlined for more understanding. Why not keeping these two articles ? Under new names if it is thought better than the more scientific one be best under the Gaia theory title ? User:anthere

I'm sorry, I didn't perfectly understand all that, but I think it's not an argument against my two-meanings hypothesis. To say it again another way: I was thinking that perhaps "Gaia theories" refers to one narrow family of things when it is said by scientists who publish in peer-reviewed journals and whom have peers who think they aren't nuts; whereas to various radical fringe scientists and wanna-be scientists who are publishing in books or publishing articles in scientifically non-rigorous journals without impressing many peer-journal-publishing scientists "Gaia theories" might refer to a much broader class of thing. If that's right, then the hard scientists who model things on super computers and their fans will be upset to hear or read "Gaia theory" defined as the broader family of ideas that includes mysticism and all kinds of speculation. Not to say that mention of this broader family of ideas couldn't fit well into the same article as the one about the narrower meaning, but I think the article would have to make it plain that "Gaia theory" means different things to different people. According to NPOV/descriptivist methodology, the hard scientists don't own the definition of "Gaia theory" any more than the Pope owns the definition of "christian." But to be included in a dictionary definition or encyclopedia article, it would not be enough that only one person in the world thinks you don't need to believe in Jesus to call yourself a christian: There would need to be significant group of people use "christian" to mean something that doesn't connote a belief in Jesus. That's why I keep wondering if there really are groups of people talking about "Gaia theories" in these two distinct senses I described (narrow and broad). 168... 07:22 2 Jul 2003 (UTC)

For the record, a PubMed search shows lots of abstracts from peer-reviewed-journals in which "Gaia theory" is mentioned: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?CMD=Search&DB=PubMed

Meanwhile, a google search turns up non-scientific statements like
 * "What is Gaia Theory? Stated simply, the idea is that we may have discovered a kind of living being bigger, more ancient, and more complex than anything from our wildest dreams. and that that being, called Gaia, includes all the others on our planet."

and what are I suspect mis-representations of Lovelock's intent such as "[some Gaia theories] assert the biota manipulate their physical environment for the purpose of creating biologically favorable, or even optimal, conditions for themselves." (my objection is to the words "for the purpose", which implies a consciousnes)

This leads me to think there must be two meanings.168... 07:37 2 Jul 2003 (UTC)

http://www.kheper.net/gaia/teleological.htm

http://www.planetecologie.org/ENCYCLOPEDIE/Pionniers/lovelock.htm

(letting other people expressing themselves, but providing links nevertheless) --- Wouldn't a link to Holism be useful? The Gaia hypothesis is one of the main inspirers of holistic thinking. Sure, new age blabber must be avoided.User:Vanderesch - We need a bit more clarification. I have been doing some more reading on this topic, and have disovered that many claims Anthere has been making in the Gaia articles are incorrect. Anthere has saying that we must refer to certain ancient religious and mystical views of the Earth and/or cosmos as "Gaia theory". In point of fact, the people who developed those ideas never referred to those ideas with this terminology! More to the point, these ideas have no relation Gaia thoery. Even today most English speakers do not use this terminology for those ideas. Anther is mistaken on this point.

More problematic is her curious claim that Dr James Lovelock's Gaia hypothesis is based upon these earlier mystic and religious beliefs. In point of fact, Dr. Lovelock says no such thing. Lovelock is an atmospheric scientists, and his Gaia hypothesis grew out of his study of atmospheric gases. He did *not* use science to build upon earlier mystical beliefs; he created his own hypothesis by applying ideas from Biology to findings from atmospheric science. Anthere's claims that all these religious and mystical views must be viewed as precursor's to Lovelock's hypothesis are incorrect; they seem to part of her own belief system, and they have no basis in historical fact. Having watched a detailed interview with Lovelock on how he developed his hypothesis, and having read two different accounts by him on the same topic, I can say with some certainty that Anthere's beliefs about the origins of the Gaia hypothesis are totally off-base.

Now, it may be true that a tiny number of radical left-wing ecology activists (for example, Gaiains) have developed certain religious and/or political beliefs based on Lovelock's ideas. They may even have mistakenly come to believe that Lovelock didn't originate the Gaia hypothesis, but merely added science to previous mystical belief systems. But so what? We can certainly mention this set of beliefs in the article on Gaians, but it would be grossly inapprorpiate to jam it into an article on atmospheric science and biology, i.e. the Gaia theory article.

Finally, Anthere keeps demanding that since some people mix together science, radical politics, and these new-age belief systems, we are somehow obligated to cram all of this into the science articles. She is plainly wrong.

 * and this is also wrong to pretend I say such a thing. I never said I wanted to mix science with politics and new age stuff. Please provide a link to assert this claim.

We in Wikipedia already have a convention for dealing with this; we already have a clear and working precedent. Consider the topics of Biological evolution and Quantum Mechanics: As many of you know, these are modern scientific theories, and our articles on these topics reflect this fact. Yet many new-age writers have come to believe that Quantum mechanics and/or evolution somehow are related to ancient mystical and religious belief systems.

As many of you know, many new-age folks try to connect Quantum Mechanics with Daoist or Buddhist philosophy, and claim that it is "proof" of the validity of these religions. I have also seen Orthodox Jews try to fuse Kabbalah (Jewish mysticism) with Quantum mechanics. But so what? Frankly, there are many individuals and groops that insist that Quantum menchanics or evolution has some mystical or political significance. Do we then rewrite encycloepdias to make them in lin with the religious or political demands of these groups or individuals?  No.  That would be a violationf our NPOV policy.

What we have always done for these issues is to create new articles on these poltical or religious groups, and explain their viewpoints. We have always done this in the past, it makes it easy to stay NPOV, and provides useful disambiguation.

Can you imagine how misleading it would to start pushing mystical, religious topics, and political topics, into our articles on Biological evolution, and on Quantum Mechanics? Why then should we do the same for the Gaia hypothesis? (Also called the Gaia theory.) Answer - we shouldn't. It would confusing and a violation of NPOV. Again, from discussions on the WikiEnglish list and on the Talk pages, it is looking like the following disambiguation scheme should be implemented. RK 22:47 2 Jul 2003 (UTC)

---

Proposed disambiguation scheme

 * Gaia: This is a disambiguation page. The term Gaia may refer to

 * Gaia (mythology) - Discussion of the Greek and Roman goddeess.

 * Gaia theory - A group of scientific theories about how life on Earth may regulate the planet's biosphere to make it more hospitable to life. This discusses all scientific views on the subject in general, including the views of Drs. James Lovelock, Lynn Margulis, Richard Dawkins, Carl Sagan, etc.

 * Gaia hypothesis- A subset of the above article; this is a discussion of Dr. James Lovelock's ideas on Gaia theory.

 * Gaia theory analogues - A discussion of proto-scientific, mystical and religious views that some people believe are related to Gaia theory.

 * Gaians - A discussion of the small left-wing radical political and environmentalist group. (Of course, other articles could be made as well, if needed.)

- moved from another talk page

For some reason my fellow Wikipedias keep missing the main point: standard Wikipedia protocol for disambiguation. In the past, this has prevented flame wars. Why is it not being allowed here? Let's change the Gaia article to a disambiguation page (my older proposal deleted; newer one added below.) RK 15:11 3 Jul 2003 (UTC)

 * I don't know if it will work, in the sense that it will solve the edit war, but it is at least the beginning of a good idea. Let's hold off on creating the disambig page for a little bit though, and let more people weigh-in. --Dante Alighieri 19:36 1 Jul 2003 (UTC)

What does mean predecessors if the predecessor article include current issues? Anthere

Ok, instead of using the term "predecessor", we can use the term "analogue". This refers to any theory that is closely related to the Gaia hypothesis, and includes current as well as ancient ideas. As such, from what I have read on the discussion list, the following disambiguation seems reasonable: RK 15:10 3 Jul 2003 (UTC)

---

Two quick points. 1) I think everybody here is missing a common scientific manner of using "Gaia theory". I believe many use it like "game theory." As in, they don't always talk about "a game theory" or "the game theory." 2) Separate articles is not the only precedent on Wikipedia. See neutral theory of molecular evolution. I believe practically one of the first things to say about this scientific theory is that a whole lot of non-scientists took it as a direct challenge to Darwin, even though it appears that it's authors did not mean it to be. I put it in the first paragraph. 168... 00:11 3 Jul 2003 (UTC)

 * Yes basically, it boils down to the fact that people often use the same term to describe different things. That is why we need disambiguation. Unfortunately, Anthere still will npot accept any disambiguation between her political and religious beliefs, and an article solely on science. I hope she changes her mind. Barring that, if we could get just one or two more people to join in and explain why we must have disambiguation, this whole issue couldbe solved in a day or two. RK 14:49 3 Jul 2003 (UTC)

The distinction is not between "political and religious beliefs" and "solely on science". In fact, there's a strong argument that scientific method is simply not applicable to Gaia theory. The usual controls and reproducibility of hard science are impossible to apply, as there is only one Earth or similar large biosphere on hand - nothing to compare it with.

 * Um, Gaia theory makes testable predictions. Some of these predictions in fact have been tested. We have extensive data available on many planets within our solar system, remember? Other predictions can be tested in principle, should data become available on the atmospheres of planets outside of our solar system. I can't imagine what led you to believe otherwise. RK 15:28 3 Jul 2003 (UTC)

One can write peer-reviewed articles but that simply gets one to consensus of a gang of scientists - not necessarily better than consensus decision making by oh say Gaians or Green Parties. Gaia theory even in the strict sense of Lovelock and Margulis is at best "soft science" like economics, and may be best approached through ideas like value of Earth.

 * That is false. See above. Many of this theory's predictions can and are tested. You are pushing your personal beliefs into a scientific issue. RK

Trying to deal with the whole planet via biology seems like greedy reductionism, at best, and scientism at worst. That said, the division seems reasonable, but maybe Gaia model is better than "theory" or "theory analogues". If you think one theory is oh say science rather than conspiracy theory, refer to the science that accepts that theory, as in Gaia theory (biology) or Gaia theory (economics) or Gaia theory (atmospheric physics). There might be Gaia theory (conpsiracy) as well. But don't offer scientists special status, or they'll kill the planet trying to see if it's alive. ;-)

 * It is inappropriate to make attacks on all scientists, slandering them as "greedy reductionists". What is your purpose writing here? Do you want to help write an article on science, or just slander scientists? The former is acceptable, the latter is not. Or are you interested in writing about mysticial, religious and political theories that are related to Gaia theory? If so, fine.  Finally, your claim that science is no different from conspiracy theory leads me to believe that you are trolling. RK

The banned ex-user "24" seems to be back: hold on a moment, and I'll do a bit of fixing-up. -- The Anome 15:36 3 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Any help is welcome to solve this article issue The Anome. You are most welcome to add anything relevant. Apparently you are not aware that 142 edits are now accepted ? Of course, we would not delete information from a non-banned user would we ? :-))) User:anthere

RK, is it your position that no content whatsoever pertaining to the broader/new-agey meaning of "Gaia theory" is acceptable in an article that covers what Earth scientists mean when they use the term? Disambiguation, of course, can take place in a single article discussing all of the meanings in depth. Also as I posted before, it's possibile in principle to write multiple articles that each say a little about the subject of the other. What's your stand on these options? For that matter, Anthere, what's yours? 168...

 * It is only my position that no extensive discussion of mystical, religious, new-age meanings of Gaia theory should be included within the article focusing on science. However, these other views certainly can be mentioned, briefly summarized, and then provide a series of links to related articles specifically on these topics.  (In fact, this article already does that.)  Also, if we do set up a disambiguation page, then all of these ideas (see above) would be listed there as well. (We can and probably should have both.) RK 15:18 4 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I suspect that most people on the street, if one asked them, would guess that more crystal worshipers use the term "Gaia theory" than do scientists. If you, RK, are indeed determined to have separate and non-overlapping articles, and if that desire reflects simply a principled opposition to this popular perception of who owns the term and what it means, I sympathasize, but I have to say I disagree with your principle. 168... 01:40 4 Jul 2003 (UTC)

 * Wouldn't that be a good reason to have disambiguation? What do you think of the proposed scheme? RK 15:21 4 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Your last proposed set of article titles (if that's what you mean by "scheme", RK) I didn't like much, because you don't allow the Gaian's to call their ideas "Gaia theories," which isn't fair, my limited Web surfing suggests, because they do get to call them Gaia theories everywhere else they go in the world. 168...

 * That is an incorrect reading of my position. In fact, I explicitly stated that I do not mind having articles which mention this. I only mind confusing mystic beliefs with an article on science by jamming them both into the same article. That is why we need disambiguation. RK 21:36 4 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Regarding whether to have one, multiple, and/or overlapping articles, I offered my opinion and what it depends on above. But in summary I think it would be appropriate to put at least some of the new-agey meaning--carefully delineated and disambiguated--in the article about the Earth science concepts.

 * And as I said many times before, I will agree to this. In fact, this article does already do this, and not just in an off-hand way. Right at the beginning there are multiple paragraphs about this. I think you may have overlooked this part of the article. RK

What if polls showed that two thirds of Americans believe that a major function of the Air Force was UFO research? You could make separate Wiki articles entitled "Air Force" and "UFO research," but you would be doing a disservice to Sri Lankans who come to Wikipedia to learn about the U.S. Airforce and its role in American society. Note that my view rests on the numbers: A lot of people have to believe that "Air Force" implies UFO research, not just one weirdo. But I suspect that the large-number standard applies to "Gaia theory." Also, to me and I suspect to many other potential readers, it's just interesting that "Gaia theory" has been taken up by non-scientists to mean these other things. Obviously this fact pushes your buttons, RK. If you were able to look at it another way, you'd find it merely fascinating and not infuriating.168... 18:38 4 Jul 2003 (UTC)

 * I am not sure why you think we disagree. Again, I totally agree with you on all these points! There are many (many!) people who think that the U.S. Air Force does a lot of secret research on alien UFOs!  And I agree with you that it would be confusing (and misleading) to allow this belief to dictate how we write our encyclopedia article on the U.S. Air Force. Our article on the U.S. Air Force should not concentrate on this view, no matter how popular it is.  At the same time, there is room in Wikipedia to discuss this issue; we could briefly mention this view in the U.S. Air Force article, and link to those groups who have such views. In those related articles we could discuss this issue in more depth.  So far, I think we are in total agreement.  All I am saying is that the same is true here.  Our article on James Lovelock's Gaia theory (also called Gaia hypothesis) should concentrate on his scientific research and the views on other scientists on this area. At the same time, there is room in Wikipedia to discuss how other groups have come to adopt Gaia theory for their own purposes, and how thus term has come to be used in popular culture. I agree with you that we could mention all this view in the Gaia theory article, and link to those groups who have such views. (In fact, is that not already what we have?) At the moment, I am unsure of what you disagree with, because I agree with everything you are writing. RK 21:36 4 Jul 2003 (UTC)

The previous Gaia theory article was mostly about these other meanings, but was still introducing a good deal of the "scientific" aspect to it. It allowed to have a quite self-standing separated article on biology aspect, without confusion with other meanings. Which was why I appreciated it. It allowed to have a central article, from which all the different aspects related to the gaia theory could radiate. Sticking to an entirely scientific article would just break the strong relations between the different parts of the concept. The interdependances would not be so easy to understand to the curious reader.

It would also be unfair to entirely neglect these other meanings just to favor the scientific consideration. I would further add that this article can't be limited to scientific "proof" anyway, as some of the strongest points of the theory likely couldnot ever be proved (perhaps the fact the biomass is acting to support its own life, or even that the biomass is acting consciously). It would since appear natural to me to consider this article is thus not only about scientific claims or rebute, but should also introduce to the other considerations as well. As 168 stated, many readers will expect an article dealing with the concept as they are aware of it. We should try to avoid surprising and perhaps disappointing them. I doubt disambuigation would suffice to direct them to the right article, and they might think "cheated" on their own beliefs (however, I support disambuigation as RK proposed). It was also because Lovelock didnot want to be confused by those believing in Gaia consciouness (to whom he had given food supporting their belief), that he backed up from his first hypothesis much more revolutionary ideas. This is typically something that can really be understood through both the understanding of the weight he had over these people and his experiments timeline.

Two articles, each of them seriously enough introducing the other meanings appear to be the option to me. Mystical, religious, political meanings of Gaia theory should be quite fairly introduced, but these three should form the core of one article, not of a myriad of several articles, all disconnected. User:anthere

 * I do not see why the proposed disambiguation scheme would disfavor certain groups. We have articles on religion and science, on science alone, and on religion alone. No one argues that the existence of multiple articles discriminates against those with religious views; no one argues that this discriminate against those with scientific views.  Heck, we have over 100,000 separate articles. We use in-article hyperlinks, "See also", discussions with links, and disambiguation pages to connect related subjects.  This has never been an issue of contention on other articles. Of course, I agree with your concerns, and we need to agree on how to do this clearly and fairly.

 * To make clear, I will agree with you that the articles dealing with science should refer to how Gaia theory is viewed by other groups, and should link to them (and vice-versa.) In fact, to a substantial degree this temporary version of the article already does that. You also write "Mystical, religious, political meanings of Gaia theory should be quite fairly introduced, but these three should form the core of one article, not of a myriad of several articles, all disconnected."  Ok, I will agree with you on this as well. Sounds fine by me. RK 21:41 4 Jul 2003 (UTC)

To me, this seems like a promising degree of agreement and/or compromise going on between you two, RK and Anthere. Since nobody else has stepped in lately to mediate, I'll go ahead myself and raise the question: How would you like to proceed from here? It sounds from your recent post, RK, that you view the current version as having some merit, despite it having content that Anthere wants. Do you also find merit in the current version, Anthere? If so, I suppose that would make the current version a good starting point (once somebody unprotects it). If you both agree that the current version is a good starting point, perhaps it would be useful for you each to describe what changes you would need to see in it to feel satisfied (for example, I suggested putting the section on the ancient Gaian ideas farther along into the article). 168... 02:06 5 Jul 2003 (UTC)

- First, I just archived a considerable amount of text. Unfortunately, in the process a considerable amount of text disappeared. I do not understand what happened. I went back in the page history to the version prior to my edit (the previous contributor was 168) and the entire talk page prior to my edit appeared. But when I tried to edit it, to retreive the lost material, it disappeared. I hope someone can retreive this material. This is especially important because the missing material includes 168's extraordinarily constructive intervention.

Second, that material ended with some agreement between RK and Anthere that there is a value to disambiguation, and an invitation from 168 for suggestions. I suggest three:

I am sure there will be some overlap among these three articles, but it seems to me that virtually all the material in the current article can be distributed among theswe three, without doing damage to any point of view. Slrubenstein 03:01 5 Jul 2003 (UTC)
 * Gaia (Godess in classical mythology)
 * Gaia theory (science)
 * Gaia theory (New age and political environmental movements)

I think I just restored all of the deleted material--assuming it was everything that followed the truncated last sentence of your last post, SLR. 168... 03:27 5 Jul 2003 (UTC)

 * Yes, thank you, Slrubenstein

RK, I just noticed that I overlooked some of your intercalated replies to my posts. Sorry that I was slow to understand your position. One thing: you seem to have misread me above. I think that if a significant proportion of people thinks that a major function of the Air Force is UFO research, then the Air Force article should say something about UFO research (as well as providing a link out to a longer article on UFO research in the Air Force, assuming there's enough to be said to justify a second, independent article). 168... 17:52 5 Jul 2003 (UTC)

 * I think I understood that; I am just concerned with proportions. We could literally write a hundred or more pages on the history, structure and impact of the U.S. Air Force, all of which would be relevant, as the U.S. Air Force actually exists. We could also the same amount of material on the beliefs of various writers and groups who truly believe that the U.S. Air Force does UFO research on extraterrestrial UFOS and aliens.  My concern is that this would misleading. Would the article be on the Air Force, or on how people in certain groups views the Air Force?  These are two different subjects. As such, I would agree with you that the main Air Force article could (Ok, should) have a paragraph discussing these views, and could provide a number of links to other articles on this subject.  When people come to an encyclopedia for serious research on the U.S. Air Force (or anything else), many people would be dismayed if it contained 25% or 50% material on these side-topics!  Similarly, if people looked wanted to learn about the science of Quantum Mechanics, Biological Evolution or Gaia theory, they would be confused, if not dismayed, to see lots of discussion about mystical, religious or political beliefs.  These are all valid subjects, but they are distinct subjects. Thus, these topics should have paragraphs discussing these views, and can provide a number of links to other articles on this subject. RK 00:59 6 Jul 2003 (UTC)

 * Minor point: In order to stay consistent with other Wikipedia articles, we should shorten the proposed "Gaia (Godess in classical mythology)" to just "Gaia (mythology)". Also, I changed some upper-case letters to lower case letters for the proposed "Gaia theory (New age and political environmental movements)"; because that is how most Wikipedia titles seem to work (unless, of course, the article title is a phrase that commonly does include capital letters, like the Federal Bureau of Investigation.) RK 00:59 6 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Above, before the recent flurry of archiving, deletion and restoration of posts from this page, I raised the question how to proceed from here in terms of the Gaia theory article, but I just had another idea. How about a set of articles like so:

 * Gaia (mythology)
 * Gaia (science) - on Lovelock and decendant hard-science theories
 * Gaia (mystical, social and environmental) - on ancient ideas and their modern, Lovelock-inspired kin, including the supposition that the Earth is conscious and a discussion of scientific support and links out to the hard-science articles
 * Gaia- a simple directory listing of the others

The Gaia theory article then could be buried and destroyed, as may be befitting a source of such controversy, and yet people could still use the term "Gaia theory" with abandon in the different articles.

Alternatively, as I was assuming before, Gaia theory might be retained as as a broad hybrid article. It seemed to me like there might be enough agreement to start discussion on how to proceed along that line, but the scheme I proposed above (which to me seems much the same as RK's and/or SLR's, just minus the fuss over the term "Gaia theory") seems a lot less trouble. I propose it only because I thought it would be more acceptable to Anthere. Anthere? 168... 02:49 6 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I finally found a proper browser that allows me to edit long pages :-). I think it would be a bad idea to dump the Gaia theory page. It is too much of a famous term not to use it. The previous situation where it was a broad hybrid article, introducing all aspects, and offering side articles such as the Gaia theory (biology) or Gaians was to me the best option. But since RK does agree with it, better is to give up on this option. I would prefer that we don't use Gaia (science), as it could lead to reject from the article what has not been proved, and could sligtly imply the other articles have little basis. Given the controversial aspects of the theory, it has a smell of pov.

Then, Gaia being a disamb is fine Gaia (mythology) is ok too (short title, certainly not long one) Gaia theory would be essentially about biology and science (as the Gaia theory (biology) was before, but would include a paragraph about the second meaning as well, which would orient readers to Gaia (mystical, social and environmental) (which would also include the political aspect)

It appears to me we agree on where the information should be. Do we on naming ? Is it clear the last one will not exclude political aspects, but be ultimately a coherent whole ? User:anthere

 * Anthere's idea sounds fine by me. (And we would also still have the Gaian article). What do you think, 168, Slrubestein, others? RK

AOK by me. 168... 17:56 6 Jul 2003 (UTC)

 * I'd just like to congratulate everyone for working together constructively on this issue. I'm unprotecting the pages now. --Dante Alighieri 20:04 6 Jul 2003 (UTC)

 * Far be it for me to muck with a carefully crafted compromise, but I have once concern regarding Anthere{s most recent suggestion, and another suggestion. My concern with calling the article on Gaia in biology and science "theory" is that this implies that only positivist scientists have the right to use theory.  Now, I myself prefer narrow definitions of terms, and when I use the word "theory" I try to use it in as proecise and scientific a way as possible.  My concern is not personaly, it is purely NPOV -- aren{t there people out there who use "Gaia theory" in non-scientific ways?  My suggestion would be to follow 168's proposal (or perhaps it was RKs most recent, I am a little mixed up)

AND set things up so that anyone who searches for "Gaia theory" is directed to the disambiguation page. But this is just an idea and if everyone else agrees with Anthere{s latest proposal, I am happy to go along,Slrubenstein
 * Gaia (mythology)
 * Gaia (science) - on Lovelock and decendant hard-science theories
 * Gaia (mystical, social and environmental) - on ancient ideas and their modern, Lovelock-inspired kin, including the supposition that the Earth is conscious and a discussion of scientific support and links out to the hard-science articles
 * Gaia- a simple directory listing of the others

 * SLR, I think I don't understand your post when you write "My concern with calling the article on Gaia in biology and science 'theory' is that this implies that only positivist scientists have the right to use theory." You seem to be responding to Anthere's suggestion of a Gaia theory article that "would be essentially about biology and science (as the Gaia theory (biology) was before, but would include a paragraph about the second meaning as well, which would orient readers to Gaia (mystical, social and environmental)." In what sense would such an article imply "theory" belongs only to one group? It seems to imply the very opposite to me. The proposal directly above that you correctly attributed to me was actually only a very late in the game secondary proposal of mine. My original proposal, which I still think is reasonable, was essentially what Anthere just proposed, and which I think RK has expressed agreement with. In fact, I think RK and Anthere have both referred to the current version of Gaia theory, which I take to be a hasty pooling of the content of contested earlier versions, as not too far from a decent compromise as is. 168... 03:25 7 Jul 2003 (UTC)

 * I object. RK's opinion is not equivalent to Anthere's on biology matters, read what they have contributed.  This compromise is not the ideal we shold be striving for.  I am inclined to trust Anthere's original judgement regardless of RK's objections, which seem as unfounded here as they have been in other places.  The absurdly long title that implies that social and environmental views are not scientific by definition, is simply wrong and fails to meet NPOV criteria.  There are also multiple sciences to deal with.  It may well be that the Value of Earth question is part of Gaia (economics).  So, is that a science?  Where does it go in this odd new scheme?  The original situation, a general purpose Gaia theory and a "harder" Gaia theory (biology) made sense.  The only reason to change it is that RK has a POV that says that all the "mythological, mystical, social and environmental" views together should not be able to define this thing "Gaia" - because he says "hard science" must do so.  Never mind that the term was actually invented by mystics and is primarily useful as a way to organize various legitimate (not "New Age", is being a Roman Catholic "New Age"?) views that are how Joe Average sees Gaia - not as a computer program called Daisyworld but as a living thing he relies on for his own life.  It is easy enough to disambiguate anyone who cares about Gaia theory (biology) in the first line of Gaia theory (everything).  That leads to the shortest titles that make the most sense, and it should be kept.  That's all I have to say about this other than:  Anthere >> RK.  EofT

 * Afterword - having just realized that User:RK actually called for a hard ban on User:Anthere, I moved various comments about this to User_talk:RK/ban. I prefer the raincloud to the "ban" nonsense, but, RK seems to seek credibility duels, so, discuss further there.  I will waste no more time on this RK.  EofT

 * 168, I am sorry I was not clear -- and reiterate, my point may be trivial or simply not congenial to you, Anthere, and RK, and I have no desire to argue it. I agree with those who believe that there should be (among others) two separate articles, one on Gaia within biological and environmental (meaning, physical geography) sciences, and one on Gaia within a variety of social movements, including "New Age" and the political environmentalist movement.  I also understand your point that both articles would use the word theory within them, albeit in different ways and with different meanings.  My only suggestion is that the word "theory" itself either be in the titles of both, or not be in either title.  Again, if this does not make sense to others, or seems unhelpful, just forget it; although I think it would be better, I do not feel so strongly about it that I would want to screw up the consensus.  As for the above remarks about RK, I think it is a shame that just at the time that a consensus seems emerging, someone needs to try to undermine it.  I thought 168s interventions were very constructive and it seemed to me that they did lead to an emerging consensus between RK and Anthere.  If I am wrong, I hope they will explain!Slrubenstein

 * Entmoot is just trolling again. Last time I disagree with on the Knowledge article, I tried explaining to him the difference between how different people use the term "Knowledge", and that not every topic related to this subject should be forced into only one article. Sadly, he responded to this by finding out that I am of the Mosaic faith, and making anti-Semitic remarks. Others condemned his actions, and others also agreed that his "contributions" to the Knowledge article were misguided. Now he is back again, refusing to add any productive commentary, and just focusing on ad homenin attacks.  His childish behaviour, and his lack of any attempt at cooperation, make his words unworthy of any consideration altogether.  I just would ignore his latest attempt at trolling. RK

title: Talk:Gaia philosophy/Archive 4


text:
Forchheim (district)

Forchheim is a Landkreis (district) in Bavaria, Germany. It is bounded by (from the north and clockwise) the districts of Bamberg, Bayreuth, Nürnberger Land and Erlangen-Höchstadt.

History
Until 1803 the region was divided between the clerical state of Bamberg and the margravate of Brandenburg-Kulmbach centred in Bayreuth. Then it fell to Bavaria. The district in its present borders was established in 1972 by merging the former district of Forchheim with parts of the dissolved districts of Ebermannstadt and Pegnitz. The city of Forchheim lost its status as a district-free city and became the capital.

Geography
The main river is the Regnitz, which runs from south to north through the western parts of the district. East of the river the land rises to the hills of the Frankish Alb.

Coat of arms
The coat of arms displays:
 * the lion of the clerical state of Bamberg
 * the key is from the arms of the county of Schlüsselberg; these counts possessed many castles in the region, but their property was acquired by the bishops of Bamberg in the 14th century
 * the trout symbolises the city of Forchheim (the word "Forchheim" literally could mean "home of the trouts" (=Forelle or old German Forche); however, most of the historians consider the name Forchheim coming more probably from "home of the pine trees" (= Föhre, which is the most frequent tree in this region).

title: Forchheim (district)


text:
Weather modification

Weather modification is the act of intentionally manipulating or altering the weather. The most common form of weather modification is cloud seeding, which increases rainfall or snowfall, usually for the purpose of increasing the local water supply. Weather modification can also have the goal of preventing damaging weather, such as hail or hurricanes, from occurring; or of provoking damaging weather against an enemy, as a tactic of military or economic warfare like Operation Popeye, where clouds were seeded to prolong the monsoon in Vietnam. Weather modification in warfare has been banned by the United Nations under the Environmental Modification Convention.

History
A popular belief in Northern Europe was that shooting prevents hail, which thus caused many agricultural towns to fire cannons without ammunition. Veterans of the Seven Years' War, Napoleonic wars, and the American Civil War reported that rain fell after every large battle. After their stories were collected in War and Weather, the United States Department of War in the late 19th century purchased $9,000 of gunpowder and explosives to detonate them in Texas, in hopes of condensing water vapor into rain. The results of the test, supervised by Robert Dyrenforth, were inconclusive.

Wilhelm Reich performed cloudbusting experiments in the 1950s, the results of which are controversial and were not widely accepted by mainstream science.

In November 1954 the Thailand Royal Rainmaking Project (Thai: โครงการฝนหลวง) was initiated by King Bhumibol Adulyadej. He discovered that many areas faced the problem of drought. Over 82 percent of Thai agricultural land relied on rainfall. Thai farmers were not able to grow crops for lack of water. The royal rainmaking project debuted on 20 July 1969 at his behest, when the first rainmaking attempt was made at Khao Yai National Park. Dry ice flakes were scattered over clouds. Reportedly, some rainfall resulted. In 1971, the government established the Artificial Rainmaking Research and Development Project within the Thai Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives.

In January 2011, several newspapers and magazines, including the UK's Sunday Times and Arabian Business, reported that scientists backed by the government of Abu Dhabi, the capital of the United Arab Emirates, had created over 50 artificial rainstorms between July and August 2010 near Al Ain, a city which lies close to the country's border with Oman and is the second-largest city in the Abu Dhabi Emirate. The artificial rainstorms were said to have sometimes caused hail, gales and thunderstorms, baffling local residents.

In the run up to the 2008 Beijing Olympic Games, the Chinese Government said they could control precipitation to some extent and that the Games would not be hampered by bad weather conditions. For this purpose they established a government office called the Beijing Weather Modification Office, which is under the national weather control office.

Cloud seeding

Cloud seeding is a common technique to enhance precipitation. Cloud seeding entails spraying small particles, such as silver iodide, onto clouds to attempt to affect their development, usually with the goal of increasing precipitation. Cloud seeding only works to the extent that there is already water vapor present in the air. Critics generally contend that claimed successes occur in conditions which were going to lead to rain anyway. It is used in a variety of drought-prone countries, including the United States, China, India, and Russia. In China, there is a perceived dependency upon it in dry regions, and there is a strong suspicion it is used to "wash the air" in dry and heavily polluted places, such as Beijing. In mountainous areas of the United States such as the Rocky Mountains and Sierra Nevada, cloud seeding has been employed since the 1950s.

Project Cirrus was an attempt by General Electric to modify the weather which ran from 1947-1952. During that time, under the supervision of the United States Air Force, attempts were made to create snowstorms and seed hurricanes by using silver iodide. While General Electric reported positive results, they also acknowledged that their experiments were controversial.

The United Arab Emirates has been cloud seeding since the 2000s and aims to increase rainfall by 15-30% per year. The materials used are potassium chloride, sodium chloride, magnesium, and other materials.

Societal
Not having adequate systems to handle weather modification may have disastrous consequences. "In the city of Jeddah in Western Saudi Arabia was damaged by floods in 2009 that reportedly killed more than 100 people; igniting questions of why the country doesn't have effective drainage systems in place."

Human
The U.S. National Library of Medicine notes that the silver iodide has no known "ill effects" on people, although people's "hands may have remained yellowed for weeks" after being exposed to it.

Storm prevention

Project Stormfury was an attempt to weaken tropical cyclones by flying aircraft into storms and seeding the eyewall with silver iodide. The project was run by the United States Government from 1962 to 1983. A similar project using soot was run in 1958, with inconclusive results. Various methods have been proposed to reduce the harmful effects of hurricanes. Moshe Alamaro of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology proposed using barges with upward-pointing jet engines to trigger smaller storms to disrupt the progress of an incoming hurricane; critics doubt the jets would be powerful enough to make any noticeable difference.

Alexandre Chorin of the University of California, Berkeley, proposed dropping large amounts of environmentally friendly oils on the sea surface to prevent droplet formation. Experiments by Kerry Emanuel of MIT in 2002 suggested that hurricane-force winds would disrupt the oil slick, making it ineffective. Other scientists disputed the factual basis of the theoretical mechanism assumed by this approach.

The Florida company Dyn-O-Mat and its CEO, Peter Cordani, proposed the use of a patented product it developed, called Dyn-O-Gel, to reduce the strength of hurricanes. The substance is a polymer in powder form (a polyacrylic acid derivative) which reportedly has the ability to absorb 1,500 times its own weight in water. The theory is that the polymer is dropped into clouds to remove their moisture and force the storm to use more energy to move the heavier water drops, thus helping to dissipate the storm. When the gel reaches the ocean surface, it is reportedly dissolved. Peter Cordani teamed up with Mark Daniels and Victor Miller, the owners of a government contracting aviation firm AeroGroup which operated ex-military aircraft commercially. Using a high altitude B-57 Bomber, AeroGroup tested the substance dropping 9,000 pounds from the B-57 aircraft's large bomb bay and dispersing it into a large thunderstorm cell just off the east coast of Florida. The tests were documented on film and made international news showing the storms were successfully removed on monitored Doppler radar. In 2003, the program was shut down because of political pressure through NOAA. Numerical simulations performed by NOAA showed however that it would not be a practical solution for large systems like a tropical cyclone.

Hail cannons have been used by some farmers since the 19th century in an attempt to ward off hail, but there is no reliable scientific evidence to confirm their effectiveness. Another new anti-hurricane technology is a method for the reduction of tropical cyclones' destructive force – pumping sea water into and diffusing it in the wind at the bottom of such tropical cyclones in its eye wall.

Hurricane modification
NOAA published a page addressing various ideas in regard to tropical cyclone manipulation.

In 2007, "How to stop a hurricane" explored various ideas such as: Researchers from NOAA's hurricane research division addressed hurricane control based ideas.
 * Using lasers to discharge lightning in storms which are likely to become hurricanes
 * Pouring liquid nitrogen onto the sea to deprive the hurricane of heat energy.
 * Creating soot to absorb sunlight and change air temperature and create convection currents in the outer wall.

Later ideas (2017) include laser inversion along the same lines as laser cooling (normally used at cryogenic temperatures) but intended to cool the top 1mm of water. If enough power were to be used then it may be enough, combined with computer modelling, to form an interference pattern able to inhibit a hurricane or significantly reduce its strength by depriving it of heat energy.

Other proposals for hurricane modification include the construction of a large array of offshore wind turbines along the East Coast of the United States. Such turbines would have the dual purpose of generating plentiful energy whilst also reducing the power of oncoming hurricanes before they make landfall.

In military
Operation Popeye was a highly classified operation run by the US military from 1967-1972. The purpose was to prolong the monsoon in Southeast Asia. The overwhelming precipitation successfully disrupted the tactical logistics of the Vietnamese army. Operation Popeye is believed as the first successful practice of weather modification technology in warfare. After it was unveiled, weather modification in warfare was banned by the Environmental Modification Convention (ENMOD).

In "Benign Weather Modification" published in March 1997, Air Force Major Barry B. Coble superficially documents the existence of weather modification science where he traces the developments that have occurred, notably, in the hands of the Pentagon and CIA's staunchest ideological enemies.

 * The first scientifically controlled and monitored effort generally recognized by the meteorological community as constituting weather modification occurred in 1948. When Dr. Irving Langmuir first experimented with artificially seeding clouds to produce rain in New Mexico, his experiments showed positive results – sparking tremendous interest in the field nearly overnight.
 * Many countries throughout the world practice weather modification. The Russians have long been interested in using weather modification as a way to control hail.

In the 1990s a directive from the chief of staff of the Air Force Ronald R. Fogleman was issued to examine the concepts, capabilities, and technologies the United States would require to remain the dominant air and space force in the future.

US and Canada agreement
In 1975, the US and Canada entered into an agreement under the auspices of the United Nations for the exchange of information on weather modification activity.

1977 UN Environmental Modification Convention
Weather modification, particularly hostile weather warfare, was addressed by the "United Nations General Assembly Resolution 31/72, TIAS 9614 Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques." The Convention was signed in Geneva on May 18, 1977; entered into force on October 5, 1978; ratified by U.S. President Jimmy Carter on December 13, 1979; and the U.S. ratification deposited in New York on January 17, 1980.

US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
In the US, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration keeps records of weather modification projects on behalf of the Secretary of Commerce, under the authority of Public Law 92-205, 15 USC § 330B, enacted in 1971.

Proposed US legislation
U.S. Senate Bill 517 and U.S. House Bill 2995 were two bills proposed in 2005 that would have expanded experimental weather modification, to establish a Weather Modification Operations and Research Board, and implemented a national weather modification policy. Neither was made into law.

Senate Bill 1807 and House Bill 3445, identical bills introduced July 17, 2007, proposed to established a Weather Mitigation Advisory and Research Board to fund weather modification research

Passed Tennessee Legislation
Tennessee bill HB 2063/SB 2691 was signed into law on April 11, 2024. This bill bans the "intentional injection, release, or dispersion" of chemicals within Tennessee "with the express purpose of affecting temperature, weather, or the intensity of the sunlight."

The text of the bill doesn't explicitly reference the chemtrail conspiracy theory, but the sponsor of the bill, Sen. Steve Southerland said that it is one of the intended targets of the bill.

In religion and mythology

Magical and religious practices to control the weather are attested in a variety of cultures. In ancient India, it is said that yajna or Vedic rituals of chanting mantras and offerings were performed by rishis to bring sudden bursts of rainfall in rain starved regions. Some Indigenous Americans, like some Europeans, had rituals which they believed could induce rain. The Finnish people, on the other hand, were believed by others to be able to control the weather. As a result, Vikings refused to take Finns on their oceangoing raids. Remnants of this superstition lasted into the twentieth century, with some ship crews being reluctant to accept Finnish sailors.

The early modern era saw people observe that during battles the firing of cannons and other firearms often initiated precipitation.

In Greek mythology, Iphigenia was offered as a human sacrifice to appease the wrath of the goddess Artemis, who had becalmed the Achaean fleet at Aulis at the beginning of the Trojan War. In Homer's Odyssey, Aeolus, keeper of the winds, bestowed Odysseus and his crew with a gift of the four winds in a bag. However, the sailors opened the bag while Odysseus slept, looking for booty (money), and as a result, were blown off course by the resulting gale. In ancient Rome, the lapis manalis was a sacred stone kept outside the walls of Rome in a temple of Mars. When Rome suffered from drought, the stone was dragged into the city. The Berwick witches of Scotland were found guilty of using black magic to summon storms to murder King James VI of Scotland by seeking to sink the ship upon which he travelled. Scandinavian witches allegedly claimed to sell the wind in bags or magically confined into wooden staves; they sold the bags to seamen who could release them when becalmed. In various towns of Navarre, prayers petitioned Saint Peter to grant rain in times of drought. If the rain was not forthcoming, the statue of St Peter was removed from the church and tossed into a river.

In the Hebrew Bible, it is recorded that Elijah in the way of judgement, told King Ahab that neither dew nor rain would fall until Elijah called for it. It is further recorded that the ensuing drought lasted for a period of 3.5 years at which time Elijah called the rains to come again and the land was restored. The New Testament records Jesus Christ controlling a storm by speaking to it.

In Islam, Salat Al-Istisqa’ (Prayer for Rain) is taken as a recourse when seeking rain from God during times of drought.

Conspiracy theories
Weather modification, along with climate engineering, is a recurring theme in conspiracy theories. The chemtrail conspiracy theory supposes that jet contrails are chemically altered to modify the weather and other phenomena. Other theories attempt to implicate scientific infrastructure such as the High-frequency Active Auroral Research Program.

In literature
Frank Herbert's Dune series features weather control technology, mainly in the planets of Arrakis, where the technology is used to assure for privacy from observation and in order to hide from the Imperium their true population and their plans to terraform the planet, and in Chapterhouse, where the Bene Gesserit intend to turn the planet into a desert.

The ability to manipulate the weather has become a common superpower in superhero fiction. A notable example is the Marvel Comics character Storm.

In the children's book Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs, the fictional town of Chewandswallow has weather that rains down food instead of actual rain or snow until it got too extreme and made the civilians move to a different town. This was adapted into a movie where Flint Lockwood, the town's outcast and scientist, has created a machine that converts water from the clouds into food.

title: Weather modification


text:
Athens (disambiguation)

Athens is the capital of Greece.

Athens may also refer to:

Relating to Athens, Greece

 * Classical Athens, the city in Classical Antiquity
 * Duchy of Athens (1205-1458), Crusader State centered around the city
 * Municipality of Athens
 * Athens A and Athens B, parliamentary constituencies
 * Athens Prefecture (1987–2010)
 * Central Athens (regional unit) (created 2011)
 * Athens Exchange, the stock exchange
 * Athens University of Economics and Business
 * National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, or simply the University of Athens

Canada

 * Athens, Ontario

Greece

 * Athenae Diades, a town of ancient Euboea
 * Athenae (Boeotia), a town of ancient Boeotia

Turkey

 * Athenae (Pontus), a city of ancient Pontus

United States

 * Athens, Alabama
 * Athens, Arkansas
 * Athens, California
 * Athens, Georgia, sixth-largest city in Georgia
 * Athens, Illinois
 * Athens, Indiana
 * Athens, Kentucky
 * Athens, Louisiana
 * Athens, Maine
 * Athens, Michigan
 * Athens, Mississippi
 * Athens, Missouri
 * Athens, Nevada
 * Athens, New York
 * Athens (village), New York
 * Athens, Ohio
 * Athens County, Ohio
 * Athens, Pennsylvania, a borough
 * Athens, Tennessee
 * Athens, Texas
 * Athens, Vermont
 * Athens, West Virginia
 * Athens, Wisconsin

Elsewhere

 * Pontic Athens, a city on the Black Sea mentioned in the 2nd century

Other uses

 * Athens (typeface)
 * ATHENS Programme, an exchange network of European higher education institutions
 * Athenas, Argentine Catholic music singer
 * Lonnie Athens (fl. from 1992), American criminologist
 * OpenAthens, an access and identity management service, previously known as Athens

title: Athens (disambiguation)


text:
Hazel Hutchins

Hazel Hutchins is a Canadian children's author.

With over fifty titles for children, Hazel's picture books, early readers and children's novels have been published in Canada, the U. S., the U.K. and appear around the world in various translations.

Awards for her work include The Marilyn Baillie Picture Book Award for Mattland (2009), The Writers Guild of Alberta Award for Children's Literature for Mattland (2009), The Prince of Tarn (1998), A Cat of Artimus Pride (1992). Her book Tess (1995) was nominated for a Governor General's Award. Other honors include the Shining Willow Young Readers' Choice Award for TJ and the Cats (2003), Mister Christie and Norma Fleck short lists and her books have appeared numerous times on the Ontario Library Association Tree awards.

Hazel was awarded the Queen Elizabeth 11's Platinum Jubilee Medal in 2022.

title: Hazel Hutchins


text:
Regnitz

The Regnitz is a river in Franconia, Germany. It is a left tributary of the Main and is 63.7 km in length.

The river is formed by the confluence of the rivers Rednitz and Pegnitz, which meet in the city of Fürth. From there the Regnitz runs northwards through the cities of Erlangen and Forchheim. It finally meets the Main near the city of Bamberg. Including its source rivers Rednitz and Franconian Rezat, it is 187.4 km long, providing the furthest source (and hence length) of the Main's river system, the largest and longest right bank tributary of the river Rhine.

Small portions of the Regnitz near Bamberg are incorporated into a canal connecting the Main with the Danube: the Rhine-Main-Danube Canal, which otherwise runs parallel from Bamberg to Fürth.

Between Fürth and Forchheim many norias for drawing water up were used from the Middle Ages until the 19th century. Some are still there or were reconstructed.

The origin of the name is uncertain. The first written evidence of the name refers to a large farm on the river. It is first mentioned in a Latin document from 1160 as Rekinzi. It may be based on Slavic Rakonica ('crab river').

title: Regnitz


text:
Operation Emery

The United States's Emery nuclear test series was a group of 16 nuclear weapons tests conducted in 1970 and 1971. These tests followed the Operation Mandrel series and preceded the Operation Grommet series.

The underground Baneberry test vented into the atmosphere. For descriptions, see Yucca Flat and List of military nuclear accidents

title: Operation Emery


text: Talk:Red Dawn

title: Talk:Red Dawn


text:
British Cameroon

British Cameroon or the British Cameroons was a British mandate territory in British West Africa, formed of the Northern Cameroons and Southern Cameroons. Today, the Northern Cameroons forms parts of the Borno, Adamawa and Taraba states of Nigeria, while the Southern Cameroons forms part of the Northwest and Southwest regions of Cameroon.

History

The area of present-day Cameroon was claimed by Germany as a protectorate during the "Scramble for Africa" at the end of the 19th century. The German Empire named the territory Kamerun. During World War I, French and British troops invaded the German colony Kamerun (Present day Cameroon) and decided to divide the German colony into two regions. One of the regions would be French administered (French Cameroon) and the other would be British administered (British Cameroon). The British were more concerned with other areas of Africa, specifically Nigeria. Thus, the French gained a larger portion of Cameroon when the country was divided.

League of Nations mandate
During World War I, it was occupied by British, French and Belgian troops, and a later League of Nations mandate to Great Britain and France by the League of Nations in 1922. The French mandate was known as Cameroun and the British territory was administered as two areas, Northern Cameroons and Southern Cameroons. Northern Cameroons consisted of two non-contiguous sections, divided by a point where the Nigerian and Cameroun borders met. In the 1930s, most of the white population consisted of Germans, who were interned in British camps starting in June 1940. The native population of 400,000 showed little interest in volunteering for the British forces; only 3,500 men did so.

Trust territory
When the League of Nations ceased to exist in 1946, most of the mandate territories were reclassified as United Nations trust territories, henceforth administered through the United Nations Trusteeship Council. The object of trusteeship was to prepare the lands for eventual independence. The United Nations approved the Trusteeship Agreements for British Cameroons to be governed by Britain on 6 December 1946.

Colonial legacy
Under colonial rule, Cameroon was ruled on the basis of indirect rule which allowed natives to execute judicial and executive decisions. The British Cameroon used indirect rule because it meant that Cameroonians would comply willingly rather than having to coercively force compliance. This was important because it gave citizens of British Cameroon autonomy and helped to establish “a greater vitality of local political institutions in West Cameroon”. Despite the indirect rule used to invigorate the spirit of citizens, the British found that they had to "approach various developmental programs" because "there was little involvement of the local people in planning and executing community development programmes."

In British Cameroon, European immigrants were subject to the laws of their home country while natives of Cameroon were held to customary law which was typically overseen by British administrators.

The legal system established during the colonial era continues to be implemented, specifically, customary laws and the two legal systems. As the community development programmes grew, there was a large delay in educational efforts because British Cameroon ". . .had no secondary school in the territory." Secondary education was largely the work of missionaries such as St. Joseph College which opened in Sasse, Buea, in 1939.

Independence
As French Cameroon gained independence, British Cameroon was still under the administration of Nigeria. French Cameroun became independent, as Cameroun or Cameroon, on January 1, 1960, and Nigeria was scheduled for independence later that same year, which raised the question of what to do with the British territory. As colonizers of Nigeria, the British desired for the two to be united. After some discussion (which had been going on since 1959), a UN-administered plebiscite was agreed to and held on 11 February 1961. The Muslim-majority Northern Area opted for union with Nigeria, and the Southern Area voted to join Cameroon. No option was given for British Cameroonian independence. The driving force for the unification of east and south Cameroon was Ahmadou Ahidjo and the Kamerun National Democratic Party (KNDP) as the French were not concerned because southern Cameroon did not align with the French community established.

Upon reunification with French Cameroon, Anglophone Cameroonians "made up about 20% of the federal population…their French counterparts made up a majority at 80 percent."

Northern Cameroons became the Sardauna Province of Northern Nigeria on 1 June 1961, while Southern Cameroons became West Cameroon, a constituent state of the Federal Republic of Cameroon, later that year on 1 October 1961.

Reunification
During the reunification period, the Anglophone education system began to change as Francophone teachers came to the former British Cameroon. However, because of the language barrier, the teachers would only speak in French or pidgin which hindered the educational development of students. During this period, there began to be preference and domination of the French language as English language certificates became replaced by French certificates.

Despite being united, the Anglophones in Cameroon did not feel represented in government politics. In 1993, the All Anglophone Conference argued at their meeting that "the 1961 Foumban Accord. . .was hardly represented by the Francophone majority who ultimately scrapped the Federal Constitution and replaced it with a Unitary Constitution." The Foumban Accord "was the basis  of Cameroon’s post-independence Federal Constitution."

title: British Cameroon