text:
User talk:Patrick0Moran

User:Patrick0Moran/Archive1

A question (I don't even know if this is the right way of doing things...)
Hi, I am not sure if this is the right way of contacting you on Wikipedia, but I am guessing it might work, so here goes. I have been looking at the Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser page, and noticed you giving some knowledgeable responses on the talk-page; I don't actually know if they were knowledgeable, but at least they look as if they are ;-) The bit I was wondering about concerns directly detecting an interference pattern in the top (simple) half of the experimental setup, if the lower half is removed (i.e. no explicit detector is used on the entangled idler particles). If you look at the talk-page of the Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser page, under the heading "Questions on slightly changed setup", you will see my question in more detail there. I am looking for a paper on an experiment where the interference pattern of entangled particles is directly visible. If you know of such a paper, I would be very grateful if you could give me the reference, or perhaps direct me to someone that might have it! I will have a look at this page under this heading from time to time to see if you have made a response. --89.253.76.71 (talk) 22:11, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll give you an "off the top" response here and then check the talk page when I have more time. The problem is that once you have set up the entangled electrons, you can't just cut them out of the total picture. You can change the lower half, but you can't "remove" the lower half. The reason is that the entangled photons that are not the ones that go to the top part will still go somewhere, and that somewhere is the de facto bottom part. You can do a couple of very simple things with the bottom half. You can put a snarly collection of carbon nano-tube muffler stuffer stuff directly in the path of those nether-wending photons, pretty surely determining that they will be "detected" before their entangled twins get to do anything. You can also put a mirror in their path and direct them into interstellar space where it might take them the remaining lifetime of the universe to find something to absorb them.

 * Originally, you would not expect to see any photons heading into the upper limb of the experiment interfering with themselves because there is neither a double-slit barrier nor any device using beam splitters. You would not expect to see interference in the upper limb supposing that a nano-snarl light trap had detected almost all of the lower-limb photons before they had gone into any beam-splitter or double-slit type of device. It is guesswork to say this because you never want to say never, but if you sent an immense number of photons off into interstellar space, the chances of any appreciable number of them lucking out and running into a galactic double-slot machine a few gazillion light years away are so slim that you might not see a single instance in your lifetime. On top of that, your upper-limb detection device would be totally swamped with photons that had not been forced to interfere with themselves, plus any number of photons that got into the apparatus without ever having been entangled. I mis-remembered which experimental apparatus was involved. There is a double-slit apparatus. It acts on both sets of entangled twin photons. So the "default" position for the upper limb is that there ought to be an interference except for the fact that various things can happen to the other set of entangled twins. If the lower limb is functionally equivalent to the upper limb, then there will be an interference pattern observed in both of them. However, if the lower limb does anything that makes all or most of the entangled photons get absorbed ("detected") before they can interfere with themselves, then you won't get an interference pattern in the upper limb either.P0M (talk) 13:14, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

 * I would feel lots more confident about thinking about these things if I had access to a well provisioned and adequately funded physics lab. I do not. However, I think I can be fairly confident that if, when a lab happened to be setting up the experimental device of two limbs, somebody had started the lasers, etc. going while lining up all the parts of the upper limb and before the entangled photons going the other way were affected by beam-splitters, etc. (simply because they weren't there yet), and if the experimenters started seeing a nice interference pattern appear on the wall behind where the detection device was planned to go, then people would be so astounded to see a sort of ex nihilo interference pattern that they would call everybody's attention to this virtually unthinkable result. As far as I know, nothing like that has happened. I doubt that it is because everybody has been careful not to turn on the lasers, etc., before the whole apparatus is ready to go. there was no interference pattern in the upper limb even if they put just a regular CCD in the D0 position, the experimenters might have been puzzled for a moment. Then they would have asked whether the photons going along the downward paths from PS had any great likelihood of interfering with each other. If they found that they were getting a couple of bright spots of light somewhere, indicating that they had "which path" information for all or most of the photons in the lower limb, then they would feel that they had a comprehensible explanation for their not getting an interference pattern in the upper limb. If they found that they were getting a nice interference fringe on a wall or some other incidental target in the lower limb, but there was no interference fringe in the upper limb, then they would have a real mystery. If they were curious and the photons coming out of PS were not getting superimposed on the same detection screen, then they could duplicate the arrangement in the upper limb in the lower limb so that the two paths coming out of PS would converge nicely and the psi-functions emerging from the two regions of PS would be superimposed and would form a nice set of interference fringes. At that point there should be interference phenomena in the upper limb too.
 * If I were doing this experiment, then being as inexperienced as I am I would establish a baseline by starting without the BBO. I would make sure that I could get a nice interference pattern along two limbs. That way I would know that there were no problems with the apparatus or basic alignment. Then I would put the BBO and the Glan-Thompson prism into the apparatus. The upper limb and the lower limb being the same setup, whatever was showing up in the upper limb should be showing up in the lower limb. Only then would I start doing things to the two paths that were originally going into PS. If I put PS back in, diverging the two paths considerably, I would expect to find two widely separated spots of light on the wall someplace, and I would expect that the interference pattern in the upper limb would disappear. If it didn't then my idea of common-sense reality would be reassured, but my ideas about what I thought I knew about quantum physics would be deeply shaken. I would admit that I was a total amateur going into a physics lab that I didn't know enough about, and I would start a long series of observations to try to figure out where my imagination had gotten out of hand.

 * After looking at the talk page for the article, I think that all of the above is, in a sense, irrelevant to your real question. You seem to be concerned with the muddying effect of having the patterns at D1 and D2 being out of phase with each other in such a way that the high amplitude regions of one fringe pattern "fill in" the low amplitude regions of the other fringe pattern, the result being a broad band of light with no observable fringes. In an idealized experiment, you could put a piece of photographic paper at D1 and another at D2 and see interference patterns recorded on the film. You could then position them appropriately to see how they would add up if they were in the right phase relationship. It isn't as though there are no fringes being produced in reality. The problem in the experimental setup is that the way they did the beam splitters and mirrors they introduced a phase difference. They have taken it out electronically, but I think they could have flipped the phase relationships one more time on one or the other path and thus have brought them together in the physical apparatus. Actually, there is another problem because of all the stray photons zipping around. If I remember correctly, the BBO sometimes passes photons through without down-frequencing and creating entangled photons. On top of that, there may be stray light from ambient illumination in the lab. So for practical purposes it makes good sense to use the coincidence counter and just ignore all the stray photons. P0M (talk) 13:14, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

"I am looking for a paper on an experiment where the interference pattern of entangled particles is directly visible. " -- What would happen if you started out with the laser of the experiment described in this article, and you kept the BBO and Glan-Thompson prism, but then you duplicated the top limb as the bottom limb. There being no double-slit anywhere, you would get, basically, two spots of light, one for D0 and one for the new detector that is its stand-in in the bottom limb. Then what would happen if you put a double-slit apparatus in either the upper or the lower limb? Both members of each pair of entangled photons would have a simple psi-function before one or the other hit the double-slit. What would happen to the entangled psi-functions after one of them hit a double slit? Is it the case that when the identical psi-function that resides at two positions in space hits the double-slit, then the identical psi-function that proceeds in two directions thereafter is a pair of psi-functions that are going to interfere and thus demonstrate interference? Or is it the case that when the identical psi-function that resides at two positions in space does not hit the double-slit, then the identical psi-function that proceeds in two directions thereafter is not a pair of psi-functions because nothing has happened to cut it (as the double-slit apparatus would), and there is nothing to interfere with itself and therefore no potential for interference phenomena to be manifested? In other words, which experience in the two limbs takes precedence? Does the splitting in one limb split the psi-function in the other limb despite nothing having happened to it at that locality? Or does the non-splitting in the other limb heal the split in the psi-function in the other limb despite nothing additional having been done to it after it went through the double-slit apparatus?

If you set up such an experiment, then you would presumably get the same result in both limbs. Either you would get two interference patterns, or you would get two spots. You would in either case explain what happened as an example of entanglement. If you got an interference pattern in the limb with the double-slit apparatus, but you got a single spot of light in the other limb, then you would conclude that entanglement was not taking place or was not the kind of phenomenon that you thought it was.

I don't know whether it is right or not, since the whole idea of causality has been getting pretty mushy, but the idea seems to be that if you have two entangled photons and you "do something" to one of them, then some change is manifested in the form of a "correlation" even though you have not "done anything" to the entangled twin. If you have not "done anything" to one of the entangled photons, then you cannot expect to have "done something" to the entangled twin. But you can't mess with Einstein and causality. So you can't speak of "doing something" to an entangled photon by "doing something" to its twin.

If you look at this problem from a stretched mind point of view, there is only one psi-function and regardless of what it looks like from a human-in-space-time point of view, if you do anything to this psi-function "as though it were located in this position, or as though it were located in that position," you change it. If you do nothing to this psi-function, then you don't change it. When you have one psi-function and you put it through a double-slit apparatus, then you change it in all its "locations," and so you should expect it to exhibit interference phenomena in all its "locations."

I'll look around to see whether anybody has made a "Y" configuration experiment and put a polarizer in one fork, or a double-slit in one fork, or something of that sort.P0M (talk) 14:20, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

See: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/90/Walborn_EtAl_QuantumEraser.svg P0M (talk) 14:36, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

This article may be what you want: http://www.scribd.com/doc/58640003/Walborn However, I don't see any indication that they have actually looked at whether an interference pattern is delivered to Dp, their upper-limb detector. P0M (talk) 15:11, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

 * Hi P0M, and thank you for your thoughtful reply! The reason all this has me confused is that I was under the impression that entangled particles will never exhibit an interference pattern in themselves, or at least not in the double-slit-before-BBO setup. To detect any form of interference pattern, I thought you are actually forced to use something like a coincidence counter between a detector on the idler particle and the detector on the "pattern-limb". Basically, I was under the impression that once you had two entangled particles, it is no longer possible to detect the "wave-like" or "particle-like" (or any other quantum state) on one of the entangled particles, without correlating its state with the other entangled particle. You propose a setup where the there are two identical entangled limbs, and say that there should be a directly visible interference pattern on both limbs in that setup. I was under the impression that both limbs in that setup would only be even-intensity blobs. I did have a look at the Walborn paper, but if you carefully read the descriptions of the interference patterns in figures 2 and 4, you will note that they are coincidence counts. Also on page 3: "The interference pattern is recovered through the coincidence detection of photons s and p."

 * The real interest I have is if you know of a (probably very basic, perhaps referenced in a text-book) paper where such an interference pattern (or even just a slit-pattern) is directly detected on entangled particles, by intensity, not by coincidence. It doesn't really have to be a delayed-choice experiment or quantum eraser experiment, just an experiment with entangled particles. You would probably still need to have a coincidence counter in the experiment, just to verify that the setup really gives entangled particles, but once that calibration is done, the coincidence counter should be able to be ignored, and the pattern should be directly detectable by intensity. --89.253.76.71 (talk) 02:33, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

 * If you had a device that would produce entangled photons and only entangled photons, and would so one at a time, then you could set up some photographic negatives as two detectors, and you could determine whether just one set of double-slits would result in the production of an interference pattern on both sheets of film, or maybe would not produce an interference pattern on either sheet of film. You would have to have a perfectly light-free room to run your experiment in.

 * You could google for articles on such an experiment. I assume that if one had been done and had received a bit of publicity then we would likely have heard of it here, but who knows? Lacking that, I think that the experiment that the article covers does just what you want, but does it in such a way that it does four possible experiments all at the same time.

If you put your eye where D3 is, you would see only the photons corresponding to the psi-function that, as split into two parts by the double-slit, bounced off of BSa. The other part of that same psi-function has gone off to D4, so for this one entangled photon that came out of the BBO, you will either get half of the psi-function and it will "show up" as a scintillation on your retina, or you will get nothing because the other half has gone somewhere else. There is only one path that leads to your eye that is standing in for D3. If you stand in for D4, then the same thing will happen. You will either get nothing or you will get one photon smack in the middle of where the "straight line" trajectory of the photon will place it. Presumably (and I'll come back to this presumption in a minute) if your twin stood at D0 then s/he would in each of these cases shout out, "dead center hit!" If you stood in for D1 or D2 then, if the rate of single photons being fired out of our expensive single-shot laser was fast enough, persistence of vision would let you see a typical Young experiment type of interference pattern. And your twin would see a mish-mash because his two patterns would coalesce into one, and also the center would be brighter than for a regular Young type interference pattern. That being said, you would nevertheless be seeing an interference pattern formed by entangled photons whenever you stood in for either D1 or D2. If you really wanted to peel apart the four layers that your twin was seeing, the we would need to re-introduce the coincidence counter and use it to sort photons into four groups at Dundefined.

As to the "presumption" mentioned above, note that by D0 there is a little vertical line and an "x." That stuff is there to indicate that the experimenters have put the detector on a sort of trolley operated by a stepping motor. Evidently a small detector sensitive enough to pick up individual photons was all they could build or afford to build, so they made this one detector look at a single "line" at a time, and moved it along to its next position after a certain amount of time had elapsed. So it operates rather like a scanner that turns your hand drawing into a JPG image. If only single photons were coming through in the upper limb of the experiment, and they were not forming any kind of extended pattern, then there would be no point of looking anywhere but the center of the straight-line trajectory coming out of the laser, BBO, etc. and into the upper limb of the experiment. So they had to have been getting an extended pattern, and the only extended pattern they would not have thought worthy of special mention would have been the typical Young-s interference pattern.

If you want an experiment that does not involve a coincidence counter, then I suspect that you will have to wait for an experimental apparatus that spits out only entangled photons.P0M (talk) 15:29, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

 * OK, so I will simply have to wait until someone figures out a way of creating only entangled particles. Probably not impossible at some point, seeing as they managed to make devices that spit out individual photons long ago! Thanks for your help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.253.76.71 (talk) 02:13, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your encouragement...
Thanks! - You and Chris Howard have succeeded (in changing my mind and returning). Thanks for standing up for me in numerous places during that "Hublolly" incident I was not aware of - its very kind of you! Maschen (talk) 00:47, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

 * You are very welcome. Welcome back!P0M (talk) 09:27, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

A favor I want to ask
Hi Pat, it was all thanks to you that I could get used to learning on Wikipedia. I have read over a thousands articles and learned how to answer most of my own questions. Now I want to ask you one more favor in order to pick up the pace. I hope you can check your email inbox before the end of this month. Thank you Pat.Mastertek (talk) 14:41, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Frank Weston Sears
Hello. I noticed that you mentioned "the original MIT series written by Francis Weston Sears" on the Intro to QM talk page. I know that you linked to a book on Amazon.com, however, since you mentioned an "MIT series" I was wondering if this set of books on Goodreads is the series to which you are referring? I am referring to the titles on this page minus the "University Physics" that you did not appreciate way back when. Also, I just noticed a "University Physics. Volume 3", so is this also a series of some sort? Steve Quinn (talk) 22:01, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

 * The original series is as follows. All are on your link.

 * Mechanics, Heat, and Sound
 * Optics
 * Thermodynamics, Kinetic Theory, and Statistical Thermodynamics (revision and expansion of An Introduction to Thermodynamics, Kinetic Theory, and Statistical Mechanics) -- I have the original. If only Sears did the revision I would go for the revision.
 * Introduction to the Theory of Relativity -- This book actually has a co-author whose name escapes me at the moment.

 * This series is so good that it is still spawning new textbooks today.

 * I think University Physics is what we used to call Sears and Zemanski. Don't buy it. (It would be a one-volume compilation of the classical physics titles.) P0M (talk) 22:41, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Files missing description details
Dear uploader: The media files you uploaded as: are missing a description and/or other details on their image description pages. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the images, and they will be more informative to readers.
 * File:Oxyopes sp.JPG
 * File:NASA Cavalli-Sforza.gif
 * File:Population 1 sample.png
 * File:Population 2 sample.png
 * File:Races of Bees.png
 * File:Aysha velox.png
 * File:Chopstick fangs.png

If you have any questions, please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 16:05, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

You probably want to add your say
DP attempted to perform a preemptive strike against me by reporting me to the edit warring noticeboard.

He didn't succeed in getting me blocked, of course, but you may wish to visit the page to add your comments. They could be useful in the future. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 13:34, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

 * Done.P0M (talk) 15:31, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Retrocausality
I'm having a difficult time with the Retrocausality section. I haven't yet found any review articles that treat the subject broadly or with any pretense at objectivity. Every paper on this subject, even those purporting be reviews, presents a strongly distinct POV, and I can't rely on my BS detection instincts.

Any suggestions? Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 03:17, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

 * @Stigmatella aurantiaca

 * I just got started on that problem myself. I'm looking at an entry in the Stanford Encyclopedia. (Personally, I think their entries can be of variable quality, but I'm willing to have a look. Just got started on it a minute ago.)

 * The whole issue blows my mind. One thing seems to be clear. There is what may be regarded as a single event that occurs across both "wings" of the experiment on account of there being entangled photons. The signal photon is under no restrictions due to any hobbles being imposed upon it in its wing of the experiment. If there were no BBO and ordinary photons were heading up the dual paths to that detector then they would always do what photons do in the basic double-slit device. However, throw the second wing into the experiment and the signal photon is compelled to behave as if it were sometimes prevented from interfering with itself -- no, let me rephrase that -- the signal photon is sometimes prevented from interfering with itself. Nothing is up there to keep it from interfering with itself, but it does about half of the time. The idea is that the signal photons event and the idler photons event are the same event except for space-time differences. As though that were not quirky enough, now consider what would happen if somebody in Kim's lab knocked a hole in the roof and directed the photons that originally would have arrived at detector one out into space. Not only that, but by luck they put the photon on a path that never in the entire history of the universe is ever going to find a convenient electron cruising around an atomic nucleus, boost that electron into a higher orbit, and end its existence. In that case, I suspect that as far as the Universe is concerned not only did a photon not land on a dust mote a million years later, but no photon left the laser. There is a certain kind of ironic sense of justice in that conclusion.

 * A more disturbing conclusion comes looming when we ask what happens if the photon hits something a million years after the experimenter activates the laser in the lab. A photon will appear in D0 after the appropriate time gap of almost no time at all, but nothing will appear in D2,3,4. That's fine with me. What bothers me is that a million years of events go by during which the position of the earth changes, a star moves into the path of the oncoming photon and moves beyond that path, a bunch of other things happen, and finally a mote of star dust comes into the path of the photon just at the right moment to get hit. If that happens, then perhaps a message gets sent backwards through time to inform that entangled twin that it is right for it to manifest itself as part of a diffraction pattern pretty much dead center of the screen. That way of thinking about things does not make me think of myself as a clockwork orange mechanically getting peeled by another clockwork orange. I can still support my idea that it really matters whether I choose to lead a better life tomorrow or choose to do something stupid like pulling a cougar's tail. However, if I think about the "decision" of how the signal photon is to be manifested as being made in the present in Kim's newly ventilated lab on the basis of a decision table that is entirely outside of time (like a dice game in which all the dice throws had been made and recorded beforehand and recorded in a secret book only known by the casino employee who announced the result of dice throws as people put down their bets stage by stage) then that would seem to imply that somehow the decision to hit that mote of dust was made outside of time and yet in knowledge of or in response to that future event, and thinking that seems to imply that the whole Universe is tied in with an event that must turn out as it is... as it is what? As it is predicted to do? As it is known before the fact to be going to do? It sounds very much like the old idea of the mind of God that stands outside of time and knows before I am born that I will choose to sin and therefore be doomed to an infinity of torture in hell. Somehow I'd like to feel that I have a choice in the matter, a real choice.

 * To return to staid reason for a moment, it would appear that anything that has to do with time is going to have a large component of subjectivity involved in it since the best minds have been unable to decide whether time is a quasi-thing, a stream in which one might swim backwards (as a positron instead of an electron perhaps, as an anti-matter person rather than a regular person) or whether it is merely the side effect of probability, the effects of entropy, the unlikelihood that Humpty-Dumpty's parts would all rebound from the stone-littered pasture and form him whole once more. If time is the ratcheting "forward" of events then temporal events might be one thing and entanglement phenomena might not be involved with the ratcheting, the arrow of time, etc. I guess that is o.k., but I am only guessing. There is no what I know of to take these things into the lab, at least not in any way beyond things like the Kim experiment.

 * I'm sure all of this has not been helpful to you. It may have been helpful to me in directing me to look for certain things. I'll see whether I can find more critiques on-line. P0M (talk) 04:19, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

 * I just took a disappointing run through all of the other commentary.

 * "Proposal for a quantum delayed-choice experiment" may be useful. I think it is right, but only because it agrees with my prejudices at this moment. I need to study it carefully.

 * As Greenstein and Zajonc point out in Quantum Challenge, it is essential to look at the entire event. I wonder whether it is relevant that different inertial frames have their own idea of what comes first and what comes second. Anyway, the arrival of one entangled photon at D0 is part of the same event in which the other entangled photon shows up at Dn. A coincidence counter with a delay-line in it to match a nearby-received twin with its remote-received twin will not ping until the twin that is far away in space or time actuates its end of the mechanism. P0M (talk) 06:03, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

I removed a lot of cruft from the retrocausality discussion. We have a number of key citations to fill in. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 08:27, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

 * I'm happy to have been led to the Gaasbeek paper. Also the Ionicioiu and Terno paper. I think there is something in Quantum Challenge to cover the "citation needed" marker. Anything else that has not been marked? P0M (talk) 09:37, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

 * Not marked, but the "what if" scenario in Problems with retrocausality extending DCQE to a year smacks of original research.

 * Also the statement "Retrocausality has not won over more than a handful of partisans as a rational explanation of the findings of delayed choice experiments" was my interpretation of a statement by Cthugha82 ("This is at least the typical contemporary position..."). I'm sure nobody has actually polled researchers in the field, and so my statement also smacks of original research based on Cthugha82's words. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 10:20, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

I think the draft is approaching the point where we need to get Cthugha82's take on it. What do you think? Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 10:50, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

 * I don't know whether I could find a specific reference in regard to stretching the Kim experiment. On the other hand, discussions on entanglement include statements that indicate there is no time limit on how far apart correspondences can be discovered. Schrödinger was originally hopeful that entanglement would just dwindle away as two entangled systems drifted apart, but he later gave that idea up. So if there is no upper limit... Practically, I think we could put a target and a clock on Mars, but that destination if only several light minutes away. At one point Cramer was planning to do experiments involving long lengths of light guides. Cthugha82 may know something we could cite.

 * I doubt that anybody has done a survey or even taken a random sample of opinion among physicists. Maybe there is a bibliography somewhere that would help us by listing prominent articles for and against. It would be fair to say something like: "The following 8 articles question the idea of retrocausality, but only 3 articles supporting the idea have been found."

 * I think it would be a good idea to have Cthugha82 take a look. P0M (talk) 13:51, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Another major swoop through the draft
I did another major swoop through the draft, mostly to simplify overly complex sentences that I let slide the first time through, but also a lot of simple copyediting. Please check over to make sure that I haven't adversely changed their intended meanings. Thanks! Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 16:31, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 17
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Wheeler's delayed choice experiment, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Orbital (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:03, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

February 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=596123278 your edit] to John Archibald Wheeler may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 02:39, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * http://nautil.us/issue/9/time/haunted-by-his-brother-he-revolutionized-physics Biographical stories

Disambiguation link notification for February 24
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Wheeler's delayed choice experiment, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Glan prism (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:08, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Guess what?
DP is inserting his say in Talk:Counterfactual definiteness and Talk:Mach–Zehnder interferometer, saying that everything is perfectly explained by classical wave arguments. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 00:27, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 18
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Counterfactual definiteness, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Entanglement (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:56, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Introduction to QM
Hello, I notice you have recently been involved in the above article. I have proposed a complete rewrite on the talk page, and have done a rewrite on my sandbox. Please give your opinion? Mcplums (talk) 21:49, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Races of Bees.png
Thank you for uploading File:Races of Bees.png. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a [ list of your uploads]. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 13:23, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Global account
Hi Patrick0Moran! As a Steward I'm involved in the upcoming unification of all accounts organized by the Wikimedia Foundation (see m:Single User Login finalisation announcement). By looking at your account, I realized that you don't have a global account yet. In order to secure your name, I recommend you to create such account on your own by submitting your password on Special:MergeAccount and unifying your local accounts. If you have any problems with doing that or further questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Cheers, —DerHexer (Talk) 01:13, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Spider bite
You and Doc James seem to have an interest in "spider bite" wiki. I disagree with the lead in. I have science as my forte but then thought it could help to have culutre as well. so something like this " Spider bites have been implicated in many ailments through history. Notably wild dancing in the Middle Ages, death between the Great Wars, and skin ulcers in the 21st Century. Although the fear of spiders may be a European trait ref Davey, G. C. (1994). The" disgusting" spider: The role of disease and illness in the perpetuation of fear of spiders. Society and Animals, 2(1), 17-25. Scientific advancement in Industrial Revolution and later put doubt into medical consequences of spider bites. Commonly held beleifs about spider bites were debunked as folktale and myth.  California physician Emile Bogen cemented the consequences of black widow envenomation, or arachnidism,  in the 20's ref Bogen, E. (1926). Arachnidism: a study in spider poisoning. Journal of the American Medical Association, 86(25), 1894-1896. Several other types of arachnidism have been described since, however, folktale and myth still dominate the perception of spider bites. Importantly, most arthropod bites are not from spiders, no spider bite is typically fatal to humans and most skin wounds are not from a spider bite. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moderntarantula (talk • contribs) 19:37, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Mandarin vs Other listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Mandarin vs Other. Since you had some involvement with the Mandarin vs Other redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Si Trew (talk) 22:31, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

File:Skin shade map.gif listed for discussion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Skin shade map.gif, has been listed at Files for discussion. See also The mass request on commons of which it is a part. Please see the to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. AlwaysUnite (talk) 20:35, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Present-day proponents of subordinating horses by force listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Present-day proponents of subordinating horses by force. Since you had some involvement with the Present-day proponents of subordinating horses by force redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 20:22, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

File source problem with File:African Genetics (primal).jpg
Thank you for uploading File:African Genetics (primal).jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a [ list of your uploads]. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

ATTENTION : This is an automated, BOT-generated message. This bot DID NOT nominate your file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 03:00, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

File:PrayingMantissClassx.jpg listed for discussion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:PrayingMantissClassx.jpg, has been listed at Files for discussion. Please see the to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Jon Kolbert (talk) 08:49, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Taekwondo
Hello PatrickoMoran, I read in an old article on Taekwondo where you made a comment about Mr. Charles Bewley. I used to train with him back in the 1974 time-frame in Colorado. RobertRGoldsworthy (talk) 16:05, 27 May 2018 (UTC)Robert GoldsworthyRobertRGoldsworthy (talk) 16:05, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Chopstick fangs.png

The file File:Chopstick fangs.png has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern: "Orphaned image for many years. The image that was digitally modified still exists and this image could be recreated in the future if there was an encyclopedic need to do so. Until there is an encyclopedic need, it does not seem necessary to store the image."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. ★ Bigr   Tex  21:16, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

EPR Paradox
Hi P0M, on 6 December 2011 you on the EPR Paradox article, the wording of which survives to this day! I'm having a little trouble parsing it, and hoped you might be able to clarify. "EPR tried to set up a paradox to question the range of true application of Quantum Mechanics".

I think there is a small grammatical issue here, but I can't decide if it should actually be "the range of true applications of Quantum Mechanics", or something else. Or perhaps I'm misreading! As you noted at the time, this stuff takes some digesting. But I'm also stuck on what the word "application" means here. If it said "...the range of interpretations..." I would be merrily on my way to the next sentence, and eventually (hopefully) able to get back to watching Avengers: Endgame. But now I'm wondering what Quantum Mechanics is being applied to, here. Modeling reality? I hope you see this and can shed some light. Thank you! 68.197.169.26 (talk) 02:44, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of Taste (software) for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Taste (software) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Taste (software) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Imcdc (talk) 10:33, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Zhi

The article Zhi has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern: "WP:NOTDICT, is just a transliteration of a chinese character."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.  - car chasm (talk) 22:20, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Introduction to eigenstates

The article Introduction to eigenstates has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern: "eigenstates are too technical for readers seeking an introduction article."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

''' This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. ''' Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 10:00, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

title: User talk:Patrick0Moran


text:
Chanterelle

Chanterelle is the common name of several species of fungi in the genera Cantharellus, Craterellus, Gomphus, and Polyozellus. They are orange, yellow or white, meaty and funnel-shaped. On the lower surface, most species have rounded, forked folds that run almost all the way down the stipe, which tapers down from the cap. Many species emit a fruity aroma and often have a mildly peppery taste.

Chanterelles are found in Eurasia, North America, and Africa, typically growing in forested areas. They initially gained popularity as an edible mushroom in the 18th century via their inclusion in French cuisine.

Taxonomy
At one time, all yellow or golden chanterelles in western North America had been classified as Cantharellus cibarius. Using DNA analysis, they have since been shown to be a group of related species. In 1997, the Pacific golden chanterelle (C. formosus) and C. cibarius var. roseocanus were identified, followed by C. cascadensis in 2003, C. californicus in 2008, and C. enelensis in 2017. C. cibarius var. roseocanus occurs in the Pacific Northwest in Sitka spruce forests, as well as Eastern Canada in association with Pinus banksiana.

Etymology
The name chanterelle originates from the Greek kantharos meaning "tankard" or "cup", a reference to their general shape. Its German name, Pfifferling, refers to its peppery taste.

Description
The mushrooms are orange, yellow or white, meaty and funnel-shaped. On the lower surface, underneath the smooth cap, most species have rounded, forked folds that run almost all the way down the stipe, which tapers down seamlessly from the cap. Many species emit a fruity aroma, reminiscent of apricots, and often have a mildly peppery taste.

Similar species
The false chanterelle (Hygrophoropsis aurantiaca) has a similar appearance and can be confused with the chanterelle. Distinguishing factors are that false chanterelles have true gills, while chanterelles have folds. Additionally, color can help distinguish the two; the true chanterelle is uniform egg-yellow, while the false chanterelle is more orange in hue and graded, with darker center. The true chanterelle's folds are typically more wrinkled or rounded, and randomly forked. Though once thought to be hazardous, it is now known that the false chanterelle is edible but not especially tasty, and ingesting it may result in mild gastrointestinal distress. The poisonous species in the genus Omphalotus (the jack-o'-lantern mushrooms) have been misidentified as chanterelles, but can usually be distinguished by their well-developed, unforked true gills. Species of Omphalotus are not closely related to chanterelles. Other species in the closely related genera Cantharellus and Craterellus may appear similar to the golden chanterelle.

Cantharellus pallens has sometimes been defined as a species in its own right, but it is normally considered to be just a variety (C. cibarius var. pallens). Unlike "true" C. cibarius it yellows and then reddens when touched and has a weaker smell. Eyssartier and Roux classify it as a separate species but say that 90% of the chanterelles sold in French markets are this, not C. cibarius.

Similarly, the very pale C. alborufescens, which reddens easily and is found in Mediterranean areas, and northern of Iran is sometimes distinguished as a separate variety or a separate species.

Species
An incomplete listing of species that have been called chanterelles includes:
 * Cantharellus cascadensis
 * Cantharellus cibarius, which has been split into several species
 * Cantharellus cinnabarinus
 * Cantharellus enelensis
 * Cantharellus formosus
 * Cantharellus lateritius
 * Cantharellus minor
 * Cantharellus roseocanus
 * Cantharellus subalbidus
 * Craterellus cinereus
 * Craterellus cornucopioides
 * Craterellus ignicolor
 * Craterellus tubaeformis
 * Craterellus odoratus
 * Gomphus clavatus
 * Polyozellus multiplex

Distribution and habitat
Chanterelles are common in Eurasia, North America (including Central America) and Africa. In the American Pacific Northwest, they can be found from July to November. They tend to grow in clusters in mossy coniferous forests, but are also often found in mountainous birch forests and among grasses and low-growing herbs. In central Europe, the golden chanterelle is often found in beech forests among similar species and forms. In the UK, they may be found from July through December.

Nutrition
Raw chanterelle mushrooms are 90% water, 7% carbohydrates, including 4% dietary fiber, 1.5% protein, and have negligible fat. A 100 gram reference amount of raw chanterelles supplies 38 kilocalories of food energy and the B vitamins, niacin and pantothenic acid, in rich content (20% or more of the Daily Value, DV), 27% DV of iron, with moderate contents (10-1 of riboflavin, manganese, and potassium (table).

When exposed to sunlight, raw chanterelles produce a rich amount of vitamin D2 (35% DV) – also known as ergocalciferol.

Culinary

Though records of chanterelles being eaten date back to the 16th century, they first gained widespread recognition as a culinary delicacy with the spreading influence of French cuisine in the 18th century, when they began appearing in palace kitchens. For many years, they remained notable for being served at the tables of nobility. Nowadays, the usage of chanterelles in the kitchen is common throughout Europe and North America. In 1836, the Swedish mycologist Elias Fries considered the chanterelle "as one of the most important and best edible mushrooms."

Chanterelles as a group are generally described as being rich in flavor, with a distinctive taste and aroma difficult to characterize. Some species have a fruity odor, others a more woody, earthy fragrance, and still others can even be considered spicy. The golden chanterelle is perhaps the most sought-after and flavorful chanterelle, and many chefs consider it on the same short list of gourmet fungi as truffles and morels. It therefore tends to command a high price in both restaurants and specialty stores.

There are many ways to cook chanterelles. Most of the flavorful compounds in chanterelles are fat-soluble, making them good mushrooms to sauté in butter, oil or cream. They also contain smaller amounts of water- and alcohol-soluble flavorings, which lend the mushrooms well to recipes involving wine or other cooking alcohols. Many popular methods of cooking chanterelles include them in sautés, soufflés, cream sauces, and soups. They are not typically eaten raw, as their rich and complex flavor is best released when cooked.

Chanterelles are also well-suited for drying, and tend to maintain their aroma and consistency quite well. Some chefs profess that reconstituted chanterelles are actually superior in flavor to fresh ones, though they lose in texture whatever they gain in flavor by becoming more chewy after being preserved by drying. Dried chanterelles can also be crushed into flour and used in seasoning in soups or sauces. Chanterelles are also suitable for freezing, though older frozen chanterelles can often develop a slightly bitter taste after thawing.

One mushroom guide asserts, "Chanterelles are often dirty, and when washed they soak up water like a sponge...[try] dry-sauteeing...it concentrates their flavor while allowing you to wash them."

In culture
In January 2024, the California golden chanterelle became the official mushroom of that state.

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

title: Chanterelle


text:
Talk:North by Northwest (movie)

There are two articles of the movie "North by Northwest". One needs to be redirected to the other or deleted (?) Dieter Simon 00:21 24 Jul 2003 (UTC)

 * I've redirected this one to there and merged the two. --Camembert

please Don't forget the picture user:smith03

 * What picture? --Camembert

I put the question on your page too, I seem to remember that there was a black white picture of Eva M Saint and Grant on the page, maybe I was thinking of somthing else Smith03

 * No, there was no picture here (see the old version). There's a rather grotty looking picture at Eva Marie Saint, but that's about it. --Camembert

title: Talk:North by Northwest (movie)


text:
Talk:Lorentz force

Presumably temporary problems
I'm about to revert myself, and work out my confusion before next saving another revision, that should actually be better than what i found. (I'm about 50 years rusty on this, and i'd better sharing my misgivings about what i found, later in this section, before saving the fix that had seemed just around the corner.) --Jerzy•t 05:58, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Polarization and magnetization
If the Lorentz force takes the form
 * $$\mathbf{F} = q\mathbf{E} + q\mathbf{v} \times \mathbf{B}$$

for an isolated particle, then in a material medium it should take the form
 * $$\mathbf{f} = \rho \mathbf{E} + \mathbf{J} \times \mathbf{B}$$

where: f is the density of force; ρ is the density of total charge; and J is the density of total current. What if we then separate the total charge and current into their free and bound parts?

From the article on Polarization density, we have
 * $$\rho = \rho_f - \nabla \cdot \mathbf P$$

where: ρf is the density of free charge; and P is the polarization density. And we also have
 * $$\mathbf{J} = \mathbf{J}_f + \nabla\times\mathbf{M} + \frac{\partial\mathbf{P}}{\partial t}$$

where: Jf is the density of free current; and M is the density of magnetization.

If we put these together, we get
 * $$\mathbf{f} = (\rho_f - \nabla \cdot \mathbf P) \mathbf{E} + (\mathbf{J}_f + \nabla\times\mathbf{M} + \frac{\partial\mathbf{P}}{\partial t}) \times \mathbf{B}$$.

Should this not be in the article? JRSpriggs (talk) 21:02, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lorentz force. 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/20090226225302/http://www.nadn.navy.mil/Users/physics/tank/Public/FaradaysLaw.pdf to http://www.nadn.navy.mil/Users/physics/tank/Public/FaradaysLaw.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) 05:59, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Force on a current-carrying wire - SeVeN uP rule
A mnemonic for remembering the direction of the force resulting from ev x B is Seven Up. Imagine yourself on the particle going through the magnetic field forwards into the screen, that is the direction of 'V'. If the direction of B is 'S'outh <--- 'N'orth (i.e. right to left - magnetic field lines point north to south), the force is uP for a Positive particle (the same as for a conventional current) and dowN for a Negative particle. This spells out SVN (seven) and uP/dowN. The v in the middle represents the fact that the particle is moving through the magnetic field (S<-N). I think this is more memorable than all the rules with hands (right or left? which finger for which thing?) Acorrector (talk) 17:07, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

title: Talk:Lorentz force


text:
Killdeer

The killdeer (Charadrius vociferus) is a large plover found in the Americas. It gets its name from its shrill, two-syllable call, which is often heard. It was described and given its current scientific name in 1758 by Carl Linnaeus in the 10th edition of his Systema Naturae. Three subspecies are described. Its are mostly brown with rufous fringes, the head has patches of white and black, and two black bands cross the breast. The belly and the rest of the breast are white. The nominate (or originally described) subspecies breeds from southeastern Alaska and southern Canada to Mexico. It is seen year-round in the southern half of its breeding range; the subspecies C. v. ternominatus is resident in the West Indies, and C. v. peruvianus inhabits Peru and surrounding South American countries throughout the year. North American breeders winter from their resident range south to Central America, the West Indies, and the northernmost portions of South America.

The nonbreeding habitat of the killdeer includes coastal wetlands, beach habitats, and coastal fields. Its breeding grounds are generally open fields with short vegetation (but locations such as rooftops are sometimes used); although it is a shorebird, it does not necessarily nest close to water. The nest itself is a scrape lined with vegetation and white material, such as pebbles or seashell fragments. This bird lays a clutch of four to six buff to beige eggs with dark markings. The breeding season (starting with egg-laying) occurs from mid-March to August, with later timing of egg-laying in the northern portion of the range. Both parents incubate the eggs for 22 to 28 days typically. The young stay in the nest until the day after being hatched, when they are led by their parents to a feeding territory (generally with dense vegetation where hiding spots are abundant), where the chicks feed themselves. The young then fledge about 31 days after hatching, and breeding first occurs after one year of age.

The killdeer primarily feeds on insects, although other invertebrates and seeds are eaten. It forages almost exclusively in fields, especially those with short vegetation and with cattle and standing water. It primarily forages during the day, but in the nonbreeding season, when the moon is full or close to full, it forages at night, likely because of increased insect abundance and reduced predation during the night. Predators of the killdeer include various birds and mammals. Its multiple responses to predation range from calling to the "ungulate display", which can be fatal for the performing individual. This bird is classified as least concern by the International Union for Conservation of Nature, because of its large range and population. Its population is declining, but this trend is not severe enough for the killdeer to be considered a vulnerable species. It is protected by the American Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 and the Canadian Migratory Birds Convention Act.

Etymology and taxonomy
The killdeer was described in 1758 by Swedish naturalist Carl Linnaeus in the 10th edition of his Systema Naturae as Charadrius vociferus, its current scientific name. Linnaeus' description was based on a 1731 account of it by English naturalist Mark Catesby in his The Natural History of Carolina, Florida and the Bahama Islands, where he called it the "chattering plover". The genus name Charadrius is Late Latin for a yellowish bird mentioned in the fourth-century Vulgate Bible. This word derives from the Ancient Greek kharadrios, a bird found in ravines and river valleys (kharadra, "ravine"). The specific name  vociferus  is Latin, coming from  vox, "cry", and  ferre, "to bear".

Three subspecies are described:
 * C. v. vociferus Linnaeus, 1758 – The nominate subspecies (originally described subspecies), it is found in the US (including southeastern Alaska), southern Canada, Mexico, and with some less widespread grounds further south, to Panama. It winters to northwestern South America.
 * C. v. ternominatus Bangs & Kennard, 1920 – This subspecies is found on the Bahamas, the Greater Antilles, and Virgin Islands.
 * C. v. peruvianus (Chapman, 1920)  – This South American subspecies is found in western Ecuador, Peru, and extreme northwest Chile.

The killdeer's common name comes from its frequently heard call.

Description
The killdeer is a large plover, with adults ranging in length from 20 to 28 cm, having a wingspan between 59 and 63 cm, and usually being between 72 and 121 g in weight. It has a short, thick, and dark bill, flesh-colored legs, and a red eye ring.

Its upper parts are mostly brown with rufous fringes, its cap, back, and wings being the former color. It has a white forehead and a white stripe behind the eye, and its lores and the upper borders to the white forehead are black. The killdeer also has a white collar with a black upper border. The rest of the face is brown. The breast and belly are white, except for two black breast bands. It is the only plover in North America with two breast bands. The rump is red, and the tail is mostly brown. The latter also has a black subterminal band, a white terminal band, and barred white feathers on the outer portion of the tail. A white wing stripe at the base of the flight feathers is visible in flight.

The female's mask and breast bands tend to be browner than those of the male. The adult of the subspecies C. v. ternominatus is smaller, paler, and greyer than the nominate. The subspecies C. v. peruvianus is smaller than the nominate and has more extensive rufous feather fringes. The juvenile is similar to the adult. The upper parts of the chicks are colored dusky and buff. Their underparts, forehead, neck, and chin are white, and they have a single band across their breast.

The killdeer is a vocal species, calling even at night. Its calls include nasal notes, like "deee", "tyeeee", and "kil-deee" (the basis of its common name). During display flights, it repeats a call of "kil-deer" or "kee-deeyu". When this plover is disturbed, it emits notes in a rapid sequence, such as "kee-di-di-di". Its is a long, fast trill.

Habitat and distribution
The nominate subspecies of the killdeer breeds in the US (including southeastern Alaska), southern Canada, and Mexico, with less widespread grounds further south, to Panama. Some northern populations are migratory. This bird is resident in the southern half of its breeding range, found throughout the year in most of the contiguous United States. It also winters south to Central America, the West Indies, Colombia, Ecuador, and islands off Venezuela, leaving its breeding grounds after mid-July, with migration peaking from August to September. Migration to the breeding grounds starts in February and ends in mid-May.

The subspecies C. v. ternominatus is thought to be resident in the Bahamas, Greater Antilles, and Virgin Islands. C. v. peruvianus is seen year-round in western Ecuador, Peru, and extreme northwestern Chile.

The killdeer uses beach habitats, coastal wetlands, and fields during the non-breeding season. It forages almost exclusively in these fields, especially those with short vegetation and with cattle (which likely shorten the vegetation) and standing water. When breeding, the killdeer has a of about 6 ha, although this is generally larger when nesting more than 50 m away from water. Although generally a low-land species, it is found up to the snowline in meadows and open lakeshores during its autumn migration.

Breeding
The killdeer forms pairs on its breeding grounds right after arriving. Both sexes (although the male more often than the female) advertise in flight with loud "killdeer" calls. The male also advertises by calling from a high spot, scraping out a dummy nest, and with killdeer flights, where it flies with slow wingbeats across its territory. Ground chases occur when a killdeer has been approached multiple times by another killdeer; similarly, flight chases occur when an individual has been approached from the air. Both are forms of territorial defense.

The killdeer nests in open fields or other flat areas with short vegetation (usually below 1 cm tall), such as agricultural fields and meadows. Nests are also sometimes located on rooftops. This plover frequently breeds close to where it bred the previous year. The male seems to usually renest in the same area regardless of whether or not he retains the same mate. This does not appear to be true of the female, which has been observed to not use the same territory if she does not have the same mate. The nest itself is merely a shallow depression or scrape in the ground, fringed by some stones and blades of grass. It is generally built with white nesting material instead of darker colors; the function of this is suspected to either help keep the nest cool or conceal it. In a study of piping plovers, the former function was supported, as nests were 2 C-change to 6 C-change cooler than the surrounding ground. The latter function also had some support, as the plovers generally chose pebbles closer in color to the eggs; nests that contrasted more with the ground suffered more predation. When nesting on rooftops, the killdeer may choose a flat roof, or build a nest of raised gravel, sometimes lined with white pebbles or pieces of seashells. The eggs of the killdeer are typically laid from mid-March to early June in the southern portion of the range, and from mid-April to mid-July in the northern part. In both cases, the breeding season itself extends to about August. In Puerto Rico, and possibly in other Caribbean islands, breeding occurs year-round.

The killdeer lays a clutch of four to six eggs that are buff to beige, with brown markings and black speckles. The eggs are about 38 by in size, and laid at intervals of 24 to 48 hours. The energy expenditure of both sexes is at its highest during egg-laying; the female needs to produce eggs, and the male needs to defend his territory. Both of the sexes are closer to the nest site than usual during egg-laying and incubation, although the male is generally closer than the female during all stages of breeding. This latter fact is likely due to the male's increased investment in nest-site defense. Up to five replacement clutches can be laid, and occasionally two broods occur. Second broods are usually laid in the nesting territory of the first brood. The eggs are incubated for 22 to 28 days by both the male and the female, with the former typically incubating at night. The time dedicated to incubation is related to temperature, with one study recording that killdeer incubated eggs 99% of the time when the temperature was about 13 C, 76% of the time around 26 C, and 87% of the time at about 35 C. When it is hot (above at least 25 C), incubation cools the eggs, generally through shading by one of the parents.

About 53% of eggs are lost, mainly to predators. The young are precocial, starting to walk within the first days of their life. After they hatch, both parents lead them out of the nest, generally to a feeding territory with dense vegetation under which the chicks can hide when a predator is near. The chicks are raised, at least in single-brood pairs, by both parents, likely because of the high failure rate of nests and the need for both parents to be present to successfully raise the young. In these broods, the young are usually attended by one parent at a time (generally the female) until about two weeks of age, after which both parents are occasionally seen together with the chicks. Otherwise, the inattentive adult is at least about 23 m away from the chicks. Periods of attentiveness for each parent generally last from about one to one and a half hours. When the chicks are young, this is mainly spent standing; as the chicks get older, less time is dedicated to standing. When the young are below two weeks of age, the attending adult spends little time feeding; foraging time increases as the chicks grow. The inattentive adult defends the young most of the time when they are less than a week old, but this task steadily shifts onto the attentive adult, until about three weeks of age, when the attending parent does almost all of the defense. One parent at a time broods the chicks and does so frequently until they are two days old. The young are brooded during the day until about 15 days after hatching and during the night for about 18 days after hatching. The only time when they are not in the presence of a parent is when the parents are mating or responding to a predator or aggressive conspecific.

When a pair has two broods, the second is usually attended by just the male (which can hatch the eggs on his own, unlike the female ). In this case, the male does not spend most of the time standing; the amount of time he does stand, though, stays constant as the chicks age. Like attentive adults in two-parent broods, the sole parent increases the time spent foraging as the young age.

The young fledge about 31 days after hatching, and generally move to moister areas in valleys and on the banks of rivers. They may be cared for by their parents for up to 10 days after they fledge, and exceptionally for 81 days after hatching. About 52 to 63% of nests fail to produce any fledged young. Breeding starts after one year of age. The killdeer has a maximum lifespan of 10 years and 11 months.

Feeding
The killdeer feeds primarily on insects (especially beetles and flies), in addition to millipedes, worms, snails, spiders, and some seeds. It opportunistically takes tree frogs and dead minnows. It forages almost exclusively in fields (no matter the tide), especially those with short vegetation and with cattle (which likely shorten the vegetation) and standing water. Standing water alone does not have a significant effect on field choice unless combined with cattle. Viable disseminules can be recovered from killdeer feces, indicating that this bird is important in transporting aquatic organisms.

The killdeer uses visual cues to forage. An example of this is "foot-trembling", where it stands on one foot, shaking the other in shallow water for about five seconds, pecking at any prey stirred up. When feeding in fields, it sometimes follows plows to take earthworms disturbed to the surface. The female forages significantly more than the male during most stages of breeding. The former feeds the most before and during egg-laying, the least when incubation starts (as little time to feed remains), with a return to high levels after. During the nonbreeding season, the killdeer forages during the night, depending on the lunar cycle. When the moon is full, it feeds more at night and roosts more during the day. Foraging at night has benefits for this bird, including increased insect abundance and reduced predation.

Predators and parasites
The killdeer is parasitized by acanthocephalans, cestodes, nematodes, and trematodes. It is preyed upon by herring gulls, common crows, raccoons, and striped skunks. The mentioned birds and other avian predators are the majority of predators in some areas during the breeding season. Predation is not limited to eggs and chicks: mustelids, for example, can kill incubating adults.

Responses to predators
The parents use various methods to distract predators during the breeding season. One method is the "broken-wing display", also known as "injury feigning". Before displaying, it usually runs from its nest, making alarm calls and other disturbances. When the bird has the attention of the predator, the former turns its tail towards the latter, displaying the threatening orange color of the rump. It then crouches, droops its wings, and lowers its tail, which is more common for them. With increasing intensity, the wings are held higher, the tail is fanned out, and the tail becomes more depressed. Another behavior that has received attention is the "ungulate display", where the adult raises its wings, exposes its rump, lowers its head, and charges at the intruder. This can be fatal to the displaying bird.

The intensity of the responses to predators varies throughout the breeding season. During egg-laying, the most common response to predators is to quietly leave the nest. As incubation starts and progresses, the intensity of predator responses increases, peaking after hatching. This is probably because it is worth more to protect the young then, as they are more likely to fledge. After hatching, reactions decrease in intensity, until a normal response is called. This is because the young become more independent as they age.

Status
The killdeer is considered a least-concern species by the IUCN due to its large range of about 26.3 km2 and population, estimated by the IUCN to be about one million birds, or about two million, according to the Handbook of the Birds of the World Alive. Though the population is declining, it is not decreasing fast enough to be considered a vulnerable species. It is protected in the US by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, and in Canada by the Migratory Birds Convention Act.

title: Killdeer


text:
Talk:Instrument

Should this page be the subject of disambiguization (however it it spelled)?

Proposal
Hi, my name is Steve Miller. I wanted to discuss the article because I don't agree with it. I'm pretty new to the wikipedian community and hope that I'm doing right,right here. And that! I Love you

The term 'instrument', in my opinion can be used only if you would talk about a device which is to be able to hold a tone stable or let's say to have a tone included.

The tone can be with the device if the tone plus had got a sound. In cymbals, this is warranted thus that they are made from an alloy. The share contained around 20%, was the tone, the one making the rest, 80%, the sound.

The term 'instrument' is to enhance as far as it is spoken about a music instrument at the end. The music instrument than has not more than that one tone included necessarily, but was in the position to allow the sound of the tone to be altered.

I need RelationShiT

This is the content of the proposal.

Sincerely; Mr. Miller

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:51, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Heinzinstrument.jpg

title: Talk:Instrument


text:
Talk:North by Northwest

Female Lead's Age
Eva Marie Saint's age in 1959 was 35, her character's age was stated in the film as being 26. If anyone has any extra info on that topic it would enhance the article. (Cary Grant's age was 55, quite an age gap in that relationship) EdX20 (talk) 15:36, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps May-December romance will explicate "quite an age gap". I (a male), for one, admit (but never discuss) my exceedingly brief personal experience (in the opposite direction that our article seems to suggest). ... Whether the older female would is beyond my willingness to speculate. --JerzyA (talk) 12:58, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Made by Paramount
It was said at the time of the film's production that Paramount produced the film, but they were disappointed with the quality of the image and they didn't want to be attributed it to them, so they sold it on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.67.29.215 (talk) 22:18, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * This is nonsense. It was with MGM from the start. - Gothicfilm (talk) 15:30, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, Head would have done the costumes had it been done at Paramount. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:6000:8742:5a00:cc9c:3d5a:38b9:c728 (talk) 23:57, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Such insights are always welcome, and thanks also to the c-l nb. for the further (unsourced) insight left stranded in the corresponding edit summary:
 * (→Made by Paramount: Edith Head worked at Paramount. She couldn't be released to do the costumes on North by Northwest.)
 * It would be good to have the WP:RS for that info, so we could add it to the article; likewise, the basis for any intentional distinction between "be" and "have been", and any surrounding context for that specific participation, incl. whether the "couldn't" refers to an inflexible contract clause, or to a more practical conflict involving production- and time-off- scheduling. --JerzyA (talk) 12:20, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Plot synopsis / Biplane sequence
In an iconic sequence, Thornhill travels by bus to meet Kaplan at an isolated crossroads in the middle of the perfectly flat, open Iowa countryside.

I'm pretty sure that the directions that Thornhill receives direct him south and east, which would put the location of the biplane ambush in Indiana, not Iowa.

I'm not sure enough, however, to go ahead and edit the page. Opinion?

Dave (talk) 20:40, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

 * Can you find a source that indicates (1) where he was when he received the instructions; and (2) exactly what the instructions say? →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 00:16, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Do we even need to state the state? Seems like a pretty minor detail to me. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:07, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It probably is, I'm just curious to know. I should add point (3) Does the film actually say that he went to Iowa? Or is this just all inference? The film climaxes in South Dakota, which is closer to Iowa than to Indiana. →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 08:13, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If this script [ http://www.script-o-rama.com/movie_scripts/n/north-by-northwest-script-transcript.html ] is faithful to the film, it was in fact Indiana. →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 09:15, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * And if you put ["north by northwest" indiana] into Google, all kinds of references pop up. However, you also get references by googling ["north by northwest" iowa]. Looks like it's desparation time - someone needs to get the film and learn what it actually says. However, this entry from the University of Iowa states that it's an Indian cornfield. I think Indiana wins this one, barring further evidence. →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 09:20, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It was on TCM last night. As per the script, Eve does tell Thornhill to take the bus from Chicago to Indianapolis and get off partway, so that puts it either in Illinois or Indiana. She informs him it's about an hour and a half by car from Chicago. Is Indiana within about 90 miles of Chicago? (P.S. the direction from Indianapolis to Chicago: northwest.) Clarityfiend (talk) 20:23, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * From Chicago, it's only about 15 miles south south-east to the Indiana border. So even at 30 miles per hour, that would only be about 30 minutes driving time before reaching the border by the most direct route. A 90 minute drive toward Indianapolis from Chicago would place the passenger most definitely within the state of Indiana. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 19:26, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

 * This article states "Hitchcock placed replicas of square Indiana highway signs in the scene." So that settles that, but it's still trivia, so I've removed it from the synopsis. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:27, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

In the CAST section there is an incorrect entry....
Great article unfortunately the following comment is partially incorrect.

"The title refers not to a compass position (NNW doesn't exist)"

NNW is a compass point, so it does exist.... not sure why that was mentioned in the first place. Best to just say the title refers not to a compass point...

NNW is a compass point - correct but that is not the film's title. There is no compass point North by Northwest, the correct name would be Northwest by North (NWbN) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.159.131.95 (talk) 07:32, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Robgps August 26 2011 06:03 UTC — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robgps (talk • contribs) 06:04, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Another error in the CAST section is the claim "Landis, who played Thornhill's mother, was in reality 10 months younger than Cary Grant." The Wikipedia entries for these two people show that Grant (aka Thornhill) was born in 1904 and Landis was born in 1896. So "in reality" she was 8 years older than Grant. I haven't edited the article to change this; perhaps I'm misunderstanding something???? 24.21.179.235 (talk) 08:30, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

 * There was uncertainty about Landis's birth year (Talk:Jessie Royce Landis) which decided in favor of 1896 over 1904, but that didn't get propagated to here until now. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:24, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Another possible source for the title
As mentioned in Archive1, there is a held shot of the NORTHWEST sign for the counter for Northwest Airlines at the airport. Are we sure that the title doesn't simply mean "traveling north by Northwest Airlines"? Remember, it was only a working title, so it didn't really have to imply Shakespeare. Note: my original idea, so no good without a source. David Spector (talk) 20:53, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

 * I believe Hitch himself made reference to that also.. in the movie trailer, re: his AH Travel Agency. 2602:304:CDAF:A3D0:F146:2A94:DBC3:4E30 (talk) 14:32, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Leonard
The article doesn't mention that Martin Landau's character, Leonard, is homosexual. It's not particularly subtle, so it's surprising it got past the Hayes Office. Whether Lehman meant it as a slur against gay men is not known. WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 14:07, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you have a source for that onformation or is it just your opinion? Beeblebrox (talk) 19:23, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Nowadays you do not need a source for pointing the finger to someone or something for allegedly being homophobic, it just takes a strong opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.115.49.200 (talk) 07:07, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

When Leonard tells Vandamm of his suspicions about Kendall, he says, 'Call it my woman's intuition, if you will.' Vandamm tries to laugh it off and says,'Leonard, I do believe you're jealous! And I'm flattered!' Khamba Tendal (talk) 13:54, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Hardly proof of anything. DonIago (talk) 15:55, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

We do not have a reliable source saying any character is gay. And yes, we do need a source to say anything. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 16:11, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I think Martin Landau himself, speaking to the Daily Telegraph in 2012, would count as a reliable source. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/film/starsandstories/9601547/Martin-Landau-I-chose-to-play-Leonard-as-gay.html "I chose to play Leonard as a gay character. It was quite a big risk in cinema at the time. My logic was simply that he wanted to get rid of Eva Marie Saint with such a vengeance, so it made sense for him to be in love with his boss, Vandamm, played by James Mason. Every one of my friends thought I was crazy, but Hitchcock liked it. A good director makes a playground and allows you to play."
 * The Time Out Film Guide, Third Edition, 1993, ISBN 0-14-017513-X, p.499, says, "And it's one of those films from which you can take as many readings as you want: conspiracy paranoia, Freudian nightmare (in which mothers, lovers, gays and cops all conspire against a man), parable on modern America..." (Capsule review by Helen MacKintosh.) The gay character alluded to would be Leonard.
 * There's a little more to it than Landau recalls, because it's in the script, in the dialogue I quoted above, making it implicitly obvious to the audience (about as obvious as you could be in 1959) that Leonard is gay. He, and he alone, sees through Kendall's deception because he is not overly susceptible to her feminine charm and, as Vandamm and Landau himself suggest, he is a little jealous of the boss's attachment to her. So it's a plot point as well as a character note. Of course they may have tweaked the script to suit Landau's interpretation, since, as he says, Hitch approved and endorsed the idea.
 * Variety's posthumous appreciation of Landau in 2017, cited in the notes to the actor's Wiki biography, confirms the story. "Landau, with Hitchcock’s approval, chose to play the henchman as gay, with a hidden crush on his boss (James Mason). Though the characterization fit the then-timely stereotype of homosexual villainy (this was 1959, after all), if you watch it now, it’s the subtext that humanizes the character. Landau’s eyes burn with a quality that only he would have had the audacity to bring to the role." https://variety.com/2017/film/news/martin-landau-appreciation-tribute-1202499149/ Khamba Tendal (talk) 11:51, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Coordinate error
The following coordinate fixes are needed for The map coordinates are incorrect.

—98.24.240.31 (talk) 14:51, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * ❌ for now. The only coordinates in the article—those indicating the location where the crop-duster attack was filmed—match the location (Garces Hwy. near Dairy Ave./Corcoran Rd.) stated in California State Route 155 and also on this page. If you have reliable information that this location is incorrect, please create a new thread on this page, including the template and specifying the location where you think the filming took place, along with a reliable source for the information. Deor (talk) 18:50, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

"I see you've got the pumpkin" - R.O.T.
i dont know if this line was improvised or scripted.. but it alludes to an infamous 1948 'MacGuffin' that also contained microfilm & etc. It was to be the start of Tricky Dick Nixon's political career, founded on consistant mud-slinging towards his opponents. (you can google or wiki "pumpkin microfilm nixon", read the wiki entry re: Richard Nixon, and the years 1948 - 1950) That's when he got labeled 'Tricky Dick' for his nefarious campaign tactics. 2602:304:CDAF:A3D0:F146:2A94:DBC3:4E30 (talk) 15:20, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 one external links on North by Northwest. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090113224341/http://www.bakersfield.com:80/102/story/258178.html to http://www.bakersfield.com/102/story/258178.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090113175557/http://www.timeout.com:80/film/newyork/reviews/63522/North_by_Northwest.html to http://www.timeout.com/film/newyork/reviews/63522/North_by_Northwest.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110413020655/http://www.dailytexanonline.com:80/content/sxsw-stays-course-continues-growth to http://www.dailytexanonline.com/content/sxsw-stays-course-continues-growth

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

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 23:56, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Checked. Altamel (talk) 00:05, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

"North by Northwest (moive)" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect North by Northwest (moive). Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Regards, SONIC  678  04:41, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Final showdown in Alaska?
The climax of the movie is on Mount Rushmore which is on South Dakota. On what grounds was this edit reverted to say it was on Alaska? David S Hawkin (talk) 21:54, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * It's a direct quote. It was originally going to end in Alaska. The very next sentence states that they settled on Mount Rushmore. DonQuixote (talk)
 * It'd have to be a very big mountain to be on South Dakota. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:45, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Comedic
Am I allowed to add the word "comedic" to the description at the beginning of the article, with a reference published by the Library of Congress, which describes the movie as a "... melding of espionage, comedy, and romance, and a surprisingly prophetic template for the James Bond movies that would follow only a few years later, ..."? I hope the reference is OK; it seems to be written by a Hitchcock-expert close to the level of the great Donald Spoto himself. Here:

https://www.loc.gov/static/programs/national-film-preservation-board/documents/North%20by%20Northwest.leitch.pdf

If anyone objects to me inserting the word "comedic" between "American" and "spy" in the first sentence, please chime in. I'll wait a few days.

Best wishes, HandsomeMrToad (talk) 06:46, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

 * UPDATE: Here's a reliable online source, a site maintained by film historian Tim Dirks and endorsed by Roger Ebert, which says of this movie: "The quick-paced, glamorous espionage thriller includes a tongue-in-cheek odyssey away from the city - a perilous adventure for a man who is normally sheltered by his wealth and prestige." (My emphasis - HandsomeMrToad.) Merriam-Webster defines "tongue-in-cheek" as "with insincerity, irony, or whimsical exaggeration". (Again, my emphasis - HMT.) Based on this, I think that "comedic" is a pretty good in-my-own-words (own-word, in this case) paraphrasing of the lines I quoted from Dirks' description.

 * So, I am again submitting, for debate and consensus seeking, my proposal to add the word "comedic" in the first sentence of the article, after "American" and before "spy thriller". I think this should be added because the source justifies it, and because (IMHO) to describe the movie just as a "spy thriller" suggests something much darker and disturbing than it is. If the reader were to read only the first sentence and no further, he would get a totally wrong impression of what the movie is, if the phrase "American spy thriller film" were left alone without mentioning or hinting that the film is a gut-busting laugh-riot.

 * Again, I'll wait a few days for objections to appear here, before I proceed.

 * Best wishes, HandsomeMrToad (talk) 22:12, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
 * It isn't widely known or referred to as a comedy. I think the two sources would support mentioning its comedic elements in the body, but not as a primary descriptor in the lead sentence. Schazjmd   (talk)  22:40, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Influences - Hart to Hart
In the 80’s show Hart to Hart in episode 3.21 it references NxNW very nearly explicitly and knowingly: “and old Cary Grant film”. The fake suit storyline is even lifted, and made-up CIA agent idea also. 2600:8802:380A:3400:8C6E:E2F3:C042:DEC7 (talk) 17:07, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

 * Per WP:IPCV there would need to be an independent source that discussed that reference before we could add it to the article. NxNW has been frequently referenced and we shouldn't bloat the article by including every trivial reference to the film, or any article by including every pop culture reference to its subject. DonIago (talk) 14:19, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Continuity
Cary Grant called his mother to get him out of jail, but he was trying to send her a telegram from the hotel where he was kidnapped because she had no phone! Kilcreggangeorge (talk) 15:38, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

 * Are you suggesting a change to the article? We don't typically just point out goofs, especially not unless sources have pointed them out. DonIago (talk) 21:38, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Similarities with Saboteur (1942 Hitchcock film)
There should be mention in this article about the similarities that North by Northwest shares with Hitchcock's 1942 film Saboteur. See the Wikipedia entry for Saboteur for the details. 65.60.129.28 (talk) 00:08, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

 * This article isn't protected. If you feel adding such information would improve the article, I'd encourage you to be bold and add it. DonIago (talk) 05:58, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * But remember you need to have a reliable source for such similarities. Otherwise, it's your own observation/conclusion which runs against WP:NOR. - kosboot (talk) 10:07, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:North by Northwest