text:
Michael Oakeshott

Michael Joseph Oakeshott FBA (11 December 1901 – 19 December 1990) was an English philosopher and political theorist who wrote on the philosophies of history, religion, aesthetics, education, and law.

Early life and education
Oakeshott was born in Chelsfield, London, on 11 December 1901, the son of Joseph Francis Oakeshott, a civil servant with the Inland Revenue, and member of the Fabian Society, and Frances Maude, daughter of George Thistle Hellicar, a well-off Islington silk-merchant. Though there is no evidence that he knew her, he was related by marriage to the women's rights activist Grace Oakeshott, and to the economist and social reformer Gilbert Slater.

Michael Oakeshott attended St George's School, Harpenden, a new co-educational and 'progressive' boarding school from 1912 to 1920. He enjoyed his schooldays, and the Headmaster, the Rev. Cecil Grant, a disciple of Maria Montessori, later became a friend.

In 1920, Oakeshott matriculated with a Scholarship at Gonville and Caius College, Cambridge, where he read history, taking the Political Science options in both parts of the Tripos, the University of Cambridge's degree examinations. He graduated in 1923 with a first-class degree, and subsequently received an unexamined M.A., and was elected a Fellow of Caius in 1925.

As a University of Cambridge student, he admired the British idealist philosophers J. M. E. McTaggart and John Grote, and the medieval historian Zachary Nugent Brooke. He said that McTaggart's introductory lectures were the only formal philosophical training he ever received. The historian Herbert Butterfield was a contemporary, friend and fellow member of the Junior Historians society.

After graduation in 1923, Oakeshott pursued theology and German literature in a summer course at the universities of Marburg and Tübingen, and again in 1925. In between, he taught literature for a year as Senior English Master at King Edward VII Grammar School, Lytham, while simultaneously writing his fellowship dissertation, which he said was a 'dry run' for his first book, Experience and its Modes.

Career
Oakeshott was dismayed by the political extremism that occurred in Europe during the 1930s, and his surviving lectures from this period reveal a dislike of Nazism and Marxism. He is said to have been the first at Cambridge to lecture on Marx. At the suggestion of Sir Ernest Barker, who sought to see Oakeshott succeed to his own chair of political science at the University of Cambridge, he produced an anthology, with commentary, The Social and Political Doctrines of Contemporary Europe, published in 1939. For all its muddle and incoherence, as Oakeshott saw it, he found representative democracy the least unsatisfactory, in part because "the imposition of a universal plan of life on a society is at once stupid and immoral."

Second World War
Oakeshott joined the British Army in 1940, before being conscripted under the National Service Act. He volunteered for the virtually suicidal Special Operations Executive (SOE), where the average life expectancy was about six weeks, and was interviewed by Hugh Trevor-Roper, who felt that he was "too unmistakably English" to conduct covert operations on the Continent.

Oakeshott saw active service in Europe with the battlefield intelligence unit Phantom, a semi-freelance quasi-Signals organisation which also had connections with the Special Air Service (SAS). Though always at the front, the unit was seldom directly involved in any actual fighting. Oakeshott's military competence did not go unnoticed, and he ended the war as Adjutant of Phantom's 'B' Squadron and an acting major.

Postwar
In 1945, Oakeshott was demobilised and returned to the University of Cambridge. In 1949, he left Cambridge for Nuffield College, Oxford, but after only two years, in 1951, he was appointed Professor of Political Science at the London School of Economics (LSE), succeeding the leftist Harold Laski, an appointment noted by the popular press. Oakeshott was deeply unsympathetic to the student activism at LSE during the late 1960s, and highly critical of what he saw as the authorities' insufficiently robust response. He retired from the LSE in 1969, but continued teaching and conducting seminars until 1980.

In his retirement, he retreated to live quietly in a country cottage in Langton Matravers in Dorset with his third wife. He was twice divorced and had numerous affairs, many of them with wives of his students, colleagues and friends, and even with his son Simon's girlfriend. He also had a son out of wedlock, whom he abandoned together with the mother when the child was two, and whom he did not meet again for nearly twenty years. Oakeshott's most famous lover was Iris Murdoch.

Oakeshott lived long enough to experience increasing recognition, although he has become much more widely written about since his death. Oakeshott declined an offer to be made a Companion of Honour, for which he was proposed by Margaret Thatcher.

Early works
Oakeshott's early work, some of which has been published posthumously as ''What is History? and Other Essays (2004) and The Concept of a Philosophical Jurisprudence'' (2007), shows that he was more interested in the philosophical problems that derived from his historical studies than he was in the history, even though he was officially a historian. Some of his very early essays are on religion (of a Christian 'modernist' kind), though after his first marital break-up (c. 1934) he published no more on the topic except for a couple of pages in his magnum opus, titled On Human Conduct. However, his posthumously published and voluminous Notebooks (1919-) show a lifelong preoccupation with religion and questions of mortality. In his youth he had considered taking Holy Orders, but later inclined towards a non-specific Romantic mysticism.

Philosophy and modes of experience
Oakeshott published his first book in 1933, Experience and its Modes, when he was thirty-one. He acknowledged the influence of Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel and F. H. Bradley; commentators also noticed resemblances between this work and the ideas of thinkers such as R. G. Collingwood and Georg Simmel.

The book argued that our experience is usually modal, in the sense that we almost always have a governing perspective on the world, be it practical or theoretical. One may take various theoretical approaches to the world: natural science, history and practice, for example, are quite separate, immiscible modes of experience. It is a mistake, he declared, to treat history on the model of the sciences, or to read into it one's current practical concerns.

Philosophy, however, is not a mode. At this stage of his career Oakeshott understood philosophy as the world seen, in Spinoza's phrase, sub specie aeternitatis, literally "under the aspect of eternity", free from presuppositions, whereas science and history and the practical mode rely on certain assumptions. Later (there is disagreement about exactly when) Oakeshott adopted a pluralistic view of the various modes of experience, with philosophy just one voice among others, though it retained its self-critical character.

According to Oakeshott, the dominating principles of scientific and historical thought are quantity (the world sub specie quantitatis) and pastness (the world sub specie praeteritorum) respectively. Oakeshott distinguished the academic perspective on the past from the practical, in which the past is seen in terms of its relevance to our present and future. His insistence on the autonomy of history places him close to Collingwood, who also argued for the autonomy of historical knowledge.

The practical world view (the world sub specie voluntatis) presupposes the ideas of will and value. It is only in terms of these that practical action, for example in politics, economics, and ethics, makes sense. Because all action is conditioned by presuppositions, Oakeshott saw any attempt to change the world as reliant upon a scale of values, which themselves presuppose a context in which this is preferable to that. Even the conservative disposition to maintain the status quo (so long as the latter is tolerable) relies upon managing inevitable change, a point he later elaborated in his essay "On Being Conservative".

Post-war essays
During this period, Oakeshott published what became his best known work during his lifetime, the collection entitled Rationalism in Politics and Other Essays (1962), and notable for its elegance of style. Some of his near-polemics against the direction that Britain was taking, in particular towards socialism, gained Oakeshott a reputation as a traditionalist conservative, sceptical about rationalism and rigid ideologies. Bernard Crick described him as a "lonely nihilist".

Oakeshott's opposition to political utopianism is summed up in his analogy (possibly borrowed from a pamphlet by the 17th-century statesman George Savile, 1st Marquess of Halifax, The Character of a Trimmer) of a ship of state that has "neither starting-place nor appointed destination...[and where] the enterprise is to keep afloat on an even keel". He was a severe critic of E. H. Carr, the Cambridge historian of Soviet Russia, claiming that Carr was fatally uncritical of the Bolshevik regime and took some of its propaganda at face value.

On Human Conduct and Oakeshott's political theory
In his essay "On Being Conservative" (1956) Oakeshott characterised conservatism as a disposition rather than a political stance: "To be conservative ... is to prefer the familiar to the unknown, to prefer the tried to the untried, fact to mystery, the actual to the possible, the limited to the unbounded, the near to the distant, the sufficient to the superabundant, the convenient to the perfect, present laughter to utopian bliss."

Oakeshott's political philosophy, as advanced in On Human Conduct (1975), is free of any recognisable party politics. The book's first part ("On the Theoretical Understanding of Human Conduct") develops a theory of human action as the exercise of intelligent agency in activities such as wanting and choosing, the second ("On the Civil Condition") discusses the formal conditions of association appropriate to such intelligent agents, described as "civil" or legal association, and the third ("On the Character of a Modern European State") examines how far this understanding of human association has affected politics and political ideas in post-Renaissance European history.

Oakeshott suggests that there had been two major modes or understandings of political organization. In the first, which he calls "enterprise association" (or universitas), the state is (illegitimately) understood as imposing some universal purpose (profit, salvation, progress, racial domination) on its subjects. (As its name indicates, enterprise association is perfectly appropriate to the management of enterprises; however, except in emergencies such as war, where all resources must be commandeered into the pursuit of victory, the state is not an enterprise, properly so called.) By contrast, "civil association" (or societas) is primarily a legal relationship in which laws impose obligatory conditions of action but do not require the associates to choose one action rather than another. (Compare Robert Nozick on 'side-constraints'.)

The complex, technical and often rebarbative style of On Human Conduct found few readers, and its initial reception was mostly one of bafflement. Oakeshott, who rarely responded to critics, replied sardonically in Political Theory to some of the contributions made in a symposium on the book in the same journal.

In his posthumously published The Politics of Faith and the Politics of Scepticism Oakeshott describes enterprise associations and civil associations in different terms. In politics, an enterprise association is based on a fundamental faith in human ability to ascertain and grasp some universal good (leading to the Politics of Faith), and civil association is based on a fundamental scepticism about human ability to either ascertain or achieve this good (leading to the Politics of Scepticism). Oakeshott considers power (especially technological power) as a necessary prerequisite for the Politics of Faith, because it allows people to believe that they can achieve something great and to implement the policies necessary to achieve their goal. The Politics of Scepticism, on the other hand, rests on the idea that government should concern itself with preventing bad things from happening, rather than enabling ambiguously good events. Oakeshott was presumably dissatisfied with this book, which, like much of what he wrote, he never published. It was evidently written well before On Human Conduct.

In the latter book Oakeshott employs the analogy of the adverb to describe the kind of restraint that law involves. Laws prescribe "adverbial conditions": they condition our actions, but they do not determine their substantive chosen ends. For example, the law against murder is not a law against killing as such, but only a law against killing "murderously". Or, to choose a more trivial example, the law does not dictate that I have a car, but if I do, I must drive it on the same side of the road as everybody else. This contrasts with the rules of enterprise associations, in which the actions required by the management are made compulsory for all.

Philosophy of history
In the final work that Oakeshott published in his lifetime, On History (1983), he returned to the idea that history is a distinct mode of experience, but this time building on the theory of action developed in On Human Conduct. Much of On History had emerged from Oakeshott's post-retirement graduate seminars at LSE, and had been written at the same time as On Human Conduct, in the early 1970s.

During the mid-1960s Oakeshott declared an admiration for Wilhelm Dilthey, one of the pioneers of hermeneutics. On History can be interpreted as an essentially neo-Kantian enterprise of working out the conditions of the possibility of historical knowledge, work that Dilthey had begun.

The first three essays set out the distinction between the present of historical experience and the present of practical experience, as well as the concepts of historical situation, historical event, and what is meant by change in history. On History includes an essay on jurisprudence ("The Rule of Law"). It also includes a retelling of The Tower of Babel in a modern setting in which Oakeshott expresses disdain for human willingness to sacrifice individuality, culture, and quality of life for grand collective projects. He attributes this behaviour to fascination with novelty, persistent dissatisfaction, greed, and lack of self-reflection.

Other works
Oakeshott's other works included a reader, already mentioned, on The Social and Political Doctrines of Contemporary Europe. It consisted of selected texts illustrating the main doctrines of liberalism, national socialism, fascism, communism, and Roman Catholicism (1939). He edited Thomas Hobbes's Leviathan (1946), with an introduction that has been recognised as a significant contribution to the literature by some later scholars. Several of Oakeshott's writings on Hobbes were collected and published in 1975 as Hobbes on Civil Association.

With his Cambridge colleague Guy Thompson Griffith, Oakeshott wrote A Guide to the Classics, or How to Pick The Derby Winner (1936), a guide to the principles of successful betting on horse-racing. This was his only published non-academic work.

Oakeshott was the author of well over 150 essays and reviews, most of which have now been republished.

Just before he died Oakeshott approved two edited collections of his works, The Voice of Liberal Learning (1989), a collection of his essays on education, and a second, revised and expanded edition of Rationalism in Politics (1991). Posthumous collections of his writings include Morality and Politics in Modern Europe (1993), a lecture series he gave at Harvard in 1958; Religion, Politics, and the Moral Life (1993), essays mostly from his early and middle periods; and The Politics of Faith and the Politics of Scepticism (1996), an already-mentioned manuscript from the 1950s contemporary with much of Rationalism in Politics but written in a more considered tone.

The bulk of his papers are now in the Oakeshott Archive at the London School of Economics. Further volumes of posthumous writings are in preparation, as is a biography, and a series of monographs devoted to his work were published during the first decade of the 21st century, and continue to be produced.

Posthumous

 * 1991. Rationalism in Politics and Other Essays. Indianapolis: Liberty Press
 * 1993. Morality and Politics in Modern Europe. New Haven: Yale University Press
 * 1993. Religion, Politics, and the Moral Life. New Haven: Yale University Press
 * 1996. The Politics of Faith and the Politics of Skepticism. New Haven: Yale University Press
 * 2000. Zuversicht und Skepsis: Zwei Prinzipien neuzeitlicher Politik. (trans. C. Goldmann). Berlin: Fest
 * 2004. What Is History? And Other Essays. Thorverton: Imprint Academic
 * 2006. Lectures in the History of Political Thought. Thorverton: Imprint Academic
 * 2007. The Concept of a Philosophical Jurisprudence: Essays and Reviews 1926–51. Thorverton: Imprint Academic
 * 2008. The Vocabulary of a Modern European State: Essays and Reviews 1952–88. Thorverton: Imprint Academic
 * 2010. Early Political Writings 1925–30. Thorverton: Imprint Academic

title: Michael Oakeshott


text:
Talk:Milk

Why is this article semi-protected?
I'm just curious what lead to this. ERBuermann (talk) 14:02, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

 * maybe lewd jokes were inserted?🤷♀ 2600:8801:FB13:6B00:581F:9C4C:FBDF:E4DC (talk) 02:18, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Probably correct. The protection log simply says “vandalism” and people comparing it to… you know… is the only real reason I can imagine the page getting protected. CharlieEdited (talk) 15:00, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Lots of health wankery around milk too. Bon courage (talk) 15:02, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Interestingly enough,"breast milk" isn't a protected page 72.199.14.210 (talk) 05:13, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Interspecies Milk Consumption - Feral Cats
I believe the type of feral cat is misidentified. It states "African" feral cats have been reported to directly pilfer milk, but the source cited only references feral cats at Isla de Guadalupe. Crypticgimmick (talk) 20:37, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Split?
It's really weird that this article is a combination of the article on the concept of mammary gland secretion as a general mammalian biology subject, which is what it should be, but even more (content-wise) the article about human consumption of dairy products (primarily bovine but also caprid). Maybe we need a Milk (food) split off, or just merge the human consumption material into Dairy product. It's weird further that Milk (food) is a redlink. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:58, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Non-dairy items that use milk as an ingredient
Could we list items like mashed potatoes that use milk as an ingredient? MightyArms (talk) 18:02, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Change Title to 'Milk (mammals)'; add new generic page surmising all 'milked' produce
Current 'Milk' Wikipedia page is biased towards milk extracted from mammals. Etymology of 'milk' known to be the process of milking (or 'to milk') and not necessarily a term to specify the produce of milking mammals. There are many examples of milked produce. For example, milking vemon of a snake and spider. From insets are examples of cockroaches and ant pupae. Avian examples from pigeons, penguins and flamingos. Sea mammals, such as seals and sea lions. From vegetation are examples of seaweed and African milk tree.

From a botanical perspective, references of 'milk' from plant sources are at least a thousand years old. The origin of the use of 'milk' in all other contexts is 'unknown'.

Change would be consistent with providing audience with encyclopaedic overview of a subject, which then branches out to subtopics like 'Milk (Mammals)'. The current 'Milk' page is not a 'sum of all human knowledge', which is the purpose of wikipedia. Kisekiya (talk) 10:09, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

 * Unrealistic proposals. We don't need another article. If you want to add information about insects just create a section near the bottom of this article. Psychologist Guy (talk) 14:46, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I actually agree with the suggested name change, it would clarify. The other uses cannot be added to this one as it stands, as it explicitly mentions this is for mamallian milk at the very start.
 * "This article is about the fluid produced by the mammary glands of mammals. For the milk-like beverages derived from plants, see Plant milk. For other uses of the word, see Milk (disambiguation)." Sklabb (talk) 19:25, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I support the proposal as there are many forms of non-mammal animal milk that are not covered by the current scope. Some amphibians, insects, and spiders produce milk to feed their young, including Siphonops annulatus, Toxeus magnus, and cockroaches, just to name the ones I know about. Alternatively, I would also support clearly delineating the scope of this article as all animal milk used for feeding offspring (not just mammals), but this would require a bit of reorganization. Nosferattus (talk) 05:31, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

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

title: Talk:Milk


text:
Straight photography

Pure photography or straight photography refers to photography that attempts to depict a scene or subject in sharp focus and detail, in accordance with the qualities that distinguish photography from other visual media, particularly painting. Originating as early as 1904, the term was used by critic Sadakichi Hartmann in the magazine Camera Work, and later promoted by its editor, Alfred Stieglitz, as a more pure form of photography than Pictorialism. Once popularized by Stieglitz and other notable photographers, such as Paul Strand, it later became a hallmark of Western photographers, such as Edward Weston, Ansel Adams and others.

Although taken by some to mean lack of manipulation, straight photographers in fact applied many common darkroom techniques to enhance the appearance of their prints. Rather than factual accuracy, the term came to imply a specific aesthetic typified by higher contrast and rich tonality, sharp focus, aversion to cropping, and a Modernism-inspired emphasis on the underlying abstract geometric structure of subjects.

The West Coast Photographic Movement
From 1910 to the early 1930s, the dominant style was East Coast Pictorialism in which objects were shot with haze and gauze to purposely blur the image for a soft focus effect. The aim was to mimic Impressionist paintings. With the emerging West Coast Movement, photography no longer imitated painting and developed as a separate art form. The new movement spread in the 1950s as the West Coast artists championed the use of natural environmental forms and clarity of detail—very novel concepts at the time.

Artists of The West Coast Photographic Movement embraced and developed straight photography in the 1930s. In his autobiography, Ansel Adams used the terms straight photography and pure photography. He describes pure photography as, "... defined as possessing no qualities of technique, composition or idea, derivative of any other art form". Practitioners of this approach created sharp-focus photographs of natural American Western objects and scenery, skilfully composed with subtleties of tone, light and texture, revealing every possible detail in the negatives. This approach was entirely radical and stirred the wrath of many in the local art world. Well known photographers, including Ansel Adams, Edward Weston, his son Brett Weston, Imogen Cunningham, Dody Weston Thompson and Berenice Abbott are considered innovators and practitioners of this style.

This was a close knit community of friends and colleagues. Most were pioneers of realistic photography but there were contemporary artists who also admired and championed this movement. Notable artists and photographers included: Dody Weston Thompson, Ansel Adams, Minor White, Charis Wilson (second wife of Edward Weston and the famous model of his nude photographic work), Paul Strand, Dorothea Lange, Wynn Bullock, Don Ross, William Garnett, Ruth Bernhard, Willard Van Dyke, Nata Piaskowski, Beaumont Newhall and Nancy Newhall, and artists Georgia O'Keeffe, Morris Graves and Jean Charlot and his wife Zohmah Charlot. Many other photographic artists of the time considered themselves practitioners of this West Coast counterculture and even formed a group known as Group f/64 to highlight their efforts and set themselves apart from the East Coast pictorialism movement.

This emphasis on the sharp and detailed silver prints dominated modernist photographic aesthetics into the 1970s.

title: Straight photography


text:
Talk:Robert Peary

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Robert Peary. 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/20090215115623/http://www.tomavery.net:80/gallery_np2005.html to http://www.tomavery.net/gallery_np2005.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20111006062726/http://www.barcapultimatenorth.com/expedition/route.php to http://www.barcapultimatenorth.com/expedition/route.php

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 17:04, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Robert Peary. 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/20090704200812/http://www.amergeog.org/honorslist.pdf to http://www.amergeog.org/honorslist.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) 18:07, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Robert Peary. 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/20060127214822/http://www.usps.com/cpim/ftp/pubs/pub528.pdf to http://www.usps.com/cpim/ftp/pubs/pub528.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20010828171504/http://academic.bowdoin.edu/arcticmuseum/ to http://academic.bowdoin.edu/arcticmuseum/

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) 02:15, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

First to reach pole
What does this mean? (in "1989 National Geographic Society studies") Herbert, who reached the Pole in 1969, is recognized as the first man leading a team to reach it." All of the other expeditions between 1909 and 1969 didn't exist?

Apparently this means he was the first to reach it on foot (assuming that Peary's accomplishment is discarded). That's a big difference.

I will note that this fact gives him a conflict of interest: he has a vested interest in stating Peary did not make the pole. Skepticalgiraffe (talk) 19:16, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Administrator - please remove naked photo of Innuit woman Aleqasina
There is plenty of recent academic evidence accusing Peary of exploiting and seriously abusing Innuit women. This photograph should be removed immediately. [Ref Alnayah's People: Archival Photographs from West Greenland, 1908-1909 by Renée Hulan, Department of English Language and Literature, Saint Mary's University, Halifax, Canada -  Renée Hulan (2023) Alnayah’s People: Archival Photographs from West Greenland, 1908–1909, Interventions, 25:8, 1088-1109, DOI: 10.1080/1369801X.2023.2169621 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/1369801X.2023.2169621] my name is Penelope Middelboe] 83.151.203.12 (talk) 13:36, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

 * The nude photograph of Aleqasina on this page must be removed as a matter of urgency. Posting it brings the Wikipedia community into very considerable disrepute.
 * The known historical facts are these. Robert Peary took Aleqasina, supposedly as his Inughuit ‘wife’, when she was 14 and she had a son by him. Peary however abandoned Aleqasina when he returned to the States. She became an Inughuit man’s wife. But each time Peary returned to the Arctic he took Aleqasina as his mistress and eventually she had a second child by him.
 * Research in the Peary archives reveals that the members of his expeditions were in the habit of taking openly pornographic photographs of Inughuit women, who had been taken from their community in NW Greenland and housed for many months on the expedition ship. Some particularly shocking photographs show a naked woman tied to the mast of the ship. We know that their treatment by Peary and his crew caused psychological damage to the women, almost all of whom were married. Many took refuge in shacks constructed of packing cases on the shore – the traces of which have recently been rediscovered by archeologists.
 * This exploitation of Inughuit women belongs to the eugenicist nineteenth-century discourse of treating first peoples as ‘savages’, who could be exploited at will by white American men. (Let us note that Matthew Henson, the sole American person of colour on the team, was an exception, speaking Inuktun fluently and forming loving relationships with two Inughuit women.)
 * This photograph is therefore an example of overtly exploitative pornography. Indeed, it was understood as such at the time it was taken. It further betrays the racist attitudes of Peary and his white male team.
 * I note that Penelope Middelboe asked for its removal some days ago but her request was ignored. I have removed it several times, adding a brief explanation, but each time ThaddeusSholto has reinstated it.
 * Let us be clear: to reinstate this image is a statement that Wikipedia endorses exploitative and racist pornography, targeted particularly at the first peoples of the northern Americas. This contribution is intended to remove any doubt about what such an action signifies.
 * Dr Jon Rosebank MA (Oxon), Fellow of the Royal Historical Society
 * Renée Hulan (2023) Alnayah’s People: Archival Photographs from West
 * Greenland, 1908–1909, Interventions, 25 (8), pp. 1088-1109.
 * Dick, Lyle (1995). "'"Pibloktoq"(Arctic Hysteria): A Construction of European-Inuit Relations?'", Arctic Anthropology 32 (2), pp. 1–42.
 * Susan A Kaplan and Genevieve M Le Moine, Peary’s Arctic Quest. Untold Stories from Robert E. Peary’s North Pole Expeditions (Camden, Maine 2019), pp. 60, 111-13. Jon Rosebank (talk) 10:19, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

 * I'm honestly not sure why we need to keep the photograph up here. What is the significance and importance of this particular picture depicting an obviously exploited child? Do we depict all children victims who are sexually exploited in a photograph with them nude in a suggestive posture. Wikipedia is not censored but Wikipedia is also not an indiscriminate collection of everything. It comes down to purpose. What purpose does the picture have for being included? Can the article make it's point about the controversy surrounding Robert Peary without the picture? What weight does the picture even carry? I maintain the onus is on the ones wanting it's inclusion to prove why it belongs. -- A Rose Wolf  12:44, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

 * It's also just a poor quality image compared to the other photos in the article, which already almost has too many images in it. I removed it per MOS:IMAGEQUALITY.
 * oncamera (talk page) 14:51, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you and I agree with removal on those grounds. -- A Rose Wolf  14:52, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

 * I support the removal of this image. There isn't a lot of reliable sources online regarding the background of this photo, but what I have found supports the comments above, and there is a possibility this woman is underage and coercion/exploitation was involved in her relationship with Peary. Magnolia677 (talk) 14:53, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

 * Remove - As an editor who primarily works in the Visual Arts, I have seen a lot nudity in paintings, sculptures and photographs. I have no problem with that nor with public nudity in certain situations. However, the use of this image within this context strikes me as creepy. Creepy in the same way as when I have seen editors add photos of nude people to articles on hot springs without their consent, or for exhibitionist purposes.

 * We do not know if this is an image of a girl in puberty, or an underage female, or an adult woman, and we have no way of knowing whether they gave their consent to be photographed in this way or if she was coerced or intimidated or even understood what the uses of a photographic image were, or had ever seen a photograph.

 * We do know the intentions of Peary, who, ahem, by-the-way, was in an inappropriate adult-child sexual relationship with the Indigenous girl depicted. Additionally, this girl likely has living decendents, have you thought,, how her family may feel about her exploitation by Peary and his cronies, or how the family may feel about her being exploited again on the pages of an encyclopedia? What if they do not want their great, grand auntie depicted this way? This was a real living human being, caught in the net of empire-building, and a victim of imbalanced power dynamics.

 * WP is not censored, however there are ethical dimensions in this particular situation that I think are not well considered by ThaddeusSholto. Is the photo’s use here against policy or best use practices? Maybe or maybe not. Is it ethical to use the image? No, and there actually is a code of ethics for photographers and visual journalists in the real world. Is it necessary for encyclopedia improvement? No.

 * Photographic exploitation and inappropriate sexual relationships are in fact harmful to children. When in doubt, do no harm. Netherzone (talk) 15:07, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

 * This discussion seems to be happening in multiple places but I already said I have no problem with the removal of the photo. My issue with the initial edits was a new editor logging in and out and claiming to be multiple people with the same IP to call things pornography and insinuate that other editors are racists and pornographers. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 15:21, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

 * Seriously, there are several points to challenge in the claim made by Netherzone.
 * * Very simply, we shouldn't be applying current notions of age-appropriate relations (between married or unmarried persons) from another culture, much less from another timeframe.
 * * The appropriateness of such a relationship should be in the context of the Inuit society. According to Inuit culture, marriage of the female commonly would have occurred at ages 14-15.
 * * Please provide support for the claim that displaying such photographs after a person has died is harmful to them (which is evidently the claim that is being made).
 * If someone comes to Wikipedia for the titillation provided by naked pictures of young children, I think they're going to be pretty disappointed; acquiescing to demands such as this one sets a bad precedent. Fabrickator (talk) 22:21, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Except Peary wasn't Inuk, or within her age group and already married, so the issue of it being OK in Inuit culture is irrelevant. I see the claim being made is that it may cause harm to her family and not so to her. Looking at thus thread it would appear that consensus is in favour of the image removal. And as the image does not add anything to a person's knowledge of Peary I agree with the removal. The image is un-encyclopedic in this article. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 17:04, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @Fabrickator, I stand by my comments above. Based on what Oncamera, CambridgeBayWeather, ARoseWolf, Magnolia677, Jon Rosenbank, Penelope Middleboe and I have stated above, it is clear there is  no consensus to use the image.
 * In addition to quality and consent issues, its use is UNDUE. The image was used to illustrate two sentences in an article. The article already has 18 photos in it, this one has no encyclopedic value. It only has shock value. Policy states the purpose of an image is to increase readers’ understanding of the article’s subject matter. It does not increase reader’s understanding of what a “sexually exploited Inuit” girl looks like, nor is it necessary to illustrate the abuse in the first place. The image is unacceptable per all three criteria of “Moral issues” of the WP image use policy: it demeans the subject, was likely unfairly obtained, and it (potentially) intrudes upon the subject’s family. Netherzone (talk) 23:57, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
 * In addition to quality and consent issues, its use is UNDUE. The image was used to illustrate two sentences in an article. The article already has 18 photos in it, this one has no encyclopedic value. It only has shock value. Policy states the purpose of an image is to increase readers’ understanding of the article’s subject matter. It does not increase reader’s understanding of what a “sexually exploited Inuit” girl looks like, nor is it necessary to illustrate the abuse in the first place. The image is unacceptable per all three criteria of “Moral issues” of the WP image use policy: it demeans the subject, was likely unfairly obtained, and it (potentially) intrudes upon the subject’s family. Netherzone (talk) 23:57, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Robert Peary


text:
Oliver Evans

 Oliver Evans (September 13, 1755 – April 15, 1819) was an American inventor, engineer, and businessman born in rural Delaware and later rooted commercially in Philadelphia. He was one of the first Americans to build steam engines and an advocate of high-pressure steam (as opposed to low-pressure steam). A pioneer in the fields of automation, materials handling and steam power, Evans was one of the most prolific and influential inventors in the early years of the United States. He left behind a long series of accomplishments, most notably designing and building the first fully automated industrial process, the first high-pressure steam engine, first vapor compression refrigeration and the first (albeit crude) amphibious vehicle and American automobile.

Born in Newport, Delaware, Evans received little formal education and in his mid-teens was apprenticed to a wheelwright. Going into business with his brothers, he worked for over a decade designing, building and perfecting an automated mill with devices such as bucket chains and conveyor belts. In doing so Evans designed a continuous process of manufacturing that required no human labor. This novel concept would prove critical to the Industrial Revolution and the development of mass production. Later in life Evans turned his attention to steam power and built the first high-pressure steam engine in the United States in 1801, developing his design independently of Richard Trevithick, who built the first in the world a year earlier. Evans was a driving force in the development and adoption of high-pressure steam engines in the United States. Evans dreamed of building a steam-powered wagon and eventually constructing and running one in 1805. Known as the Oruktor Amphibolos, it was the first automobile in the country and the world's first amphibious vehicle, although it was too primitive to be a success as either.

Evans was a visionary who produced designs and ideas far ahead of their time. He was the first to describe vapor-compression refrigeration and propose a design for the first refrigerator in 1805, but it would be three decades until his colleague Jacob Perkins would be able to construct a working example. Similarly, he drew up designs for a solar boiler, machine gun, steam-carriage gearshift, dough-kneading machine, perpetual baking oven, marine salvage process, quadruple-effect evaporator, and a scheme for urban gas lighting, ideas and designs which would not be made reality until some time after his death. Evans had influential backers and political allies, but lacked social graces and was disliked by many of his peers. Disappointed and then angry at the perceived lack of recognition for his contributions, Evans became combative and bitter in later years, which damaged his reputation and left him isolated. Despite the importance of his work, his contributions were frequently overlooked (or attributed to others after his death) so he never became a household name alongside the other steam pioneers of his era.

Early life, 1755–83
Oliver Evans was born in Newport, Delaware on September 13, 1755, to Charles and Ann Stalcop Evans. His father was a cordwainer by trade, though he purchased a large farm to the north of Newport on the Red Clay Creek and moved his family there when Oliver was still in his infancy. Oliver was the fifth of twelve children; he had four sisters and seven brothers. Little else is known of Evans's early life, and surviving records provide few details as to his formative years. The nature and location of his early education have not been preserved, however, his literacy was demonstrably strong from a young age, both as a writer and an avid reader on technical subjects. Aged 17, Evans was apprenticed to a wheelwright and wagon-maker in Newport. An anecdote from the period recalls that his master, an illiterate and extremely frugal man, forbade Evans the use of candles to illuminate his reading in the evenings. Evans found another way by collecting scraps and shavings of wood from his work during the day to serve as fuel for small fires. The Revolutionary War began when Evans was 19. He enlisted in a Delaware militia company but saw no active service during the war.

By the age of 22, Evans moved out of wheel-making and became a specialist in forming the fine wire used in textile cards, which was used to comb fibers in preparation for the spinning process to make thread or yarn. A desire to increase the efficiency of this process led him to his first invention—a machine that would bend wire into teeth and cut them off rapidly to aid the assembly of cards. George Latimer, then a justice of the peace in Newport, saw its potential and tasked a blacksmith with creating the machine, which became one of Evans's early successes when it was introduced in 1778. Evans wished to go further in mechanizing the production of textile cards by developing a machine that could puncture the leather into which the wire teeth were inserted. His invention greatly speeded the card manufacturing process, producing around 1,500 teeth every minute, though Evans himself was unable to find financial backing to commercialize his invention. Nevertheless, over the next two decades card manufacturing innovations inspired by Evans led to the development of automated textile card production, then in great demand due to the growth of the Southern cotton industry. Early pioneers of mechanized textile-card production, including Giles Richards and Amos Whittemore, are thought to have borrowed heavily from his original designs.

Evans also began experimenting in this period with steam power and its potential for commercial application. His early ideas culminated in a Delaware state patent application in 1783 for a steam-powered wagon, but it was denied as Evans had yet to produce a working model. That same year, aged 27, Evans married Sarah Tomlinson, daughter of a local farmer, in Old Swedes' Episcopal Church in Wilmington.

Developing the automatic flour mill, 1783–90
Evans's attention turned to flour milling in the early 1780s, an industry that was booming in rapidly industrializing northern Delaware. In this era, the operation of grist mills was labor-intensive. Although the stages of the milling process—grinding, cooling, sifting, and packing—were beginning to be mechanized to various degrees, gravity or manual labor was required to move grain from one stage to the next. Additionally, some stages (particularly cooling) were slow and inefficient, creating significant production process bottlenecks. Mills were becoming commonplace in populated areas and those with ready access to waterways for power, but the bulk of milling in the 1780s was done in the home through hand milling. Furthermore, the quality of milled wheat was poor in colonial America. Hard wheat varieties were insufficiently ground and sifted by mills, leaving a flour that was coarse and brown. Cross-contamination was a major problem: mill processes were not well-partitioned; the many people moving about the mill contaminated the flour with dirt, grain and other impurities. The result, Evans recognized, was a low-quality product that took too many laborers to make.

In 1783, two of Evans's brothers began building a mill in Newport on part of the family's farm estate which they purchased from their father, and Evans was recruited to oversee its construction on the Red Clay Creek. When the mill opened in 1785 it was of a conventional design, but over the next five years, Evans began to experiment with inventions to reduce the reliance upon labor for milling. Moving wheat from the bottom to the top of the mill to begin the process was the most onerous task of all in contemporary mills. Evans's first innovation was a bucket elevator to facilitate this process. Chains of buckets to raise water was a Roman technology that had been used in various guises since antiquity. Evans had seen diagrams of their use for marine applications and realized with some modification and careful engineering they could be used to raise grain, so a series of bucket elevators around a mill could move grain and flour from one process to the next. Another labor-intensive task was that of spreading meal. This came out of the grinding process warm and moist, needing cooling and drying before it could be sifted and packed. Traditionally the task was done by manually shoveling meal across large floors. In response, Evans developed the "hopper boy", a device that gathered meal from a bucket elevator and spread it evenly over the drying floor—a mechanical rake would revolve around the floorspace. This would even out newly deposited meals for cooling and drying, while a gentle incline in the design of the rake blades would slowly move the flour towards central chutes, from which the material would be sifted. Used in conjunction, the two innovations saved many hours of labor and greatly reduced the risk of contamination.

Despite their technical complexity, neither device was revolutionary by the standards of the time. However, the total vision of their design was. Evans was attempting a radical shift in thinking about the manufacturing process, treating it as a continuous integrated whole rather than a series of isolated processes. Thus, manufacturing could be a fully automated production line. The missing link was materials handling, and Evans's mill designs sought to feed materials continuously through a system without the need for any human intervention. This was the first fully automated industrial process, and the idea of continuous production was proved to be a critical ingredient of the industrial revolution, and would ultimately lay the foundation for modern mass production.

Constructing the machinery to realize this vision was complicated. Evans struggled to find the money to pay the highly skilled carpenters needed to construct his complex machines. The nearby flour milling industry on the Brandywine River was large, but dominated by the Quaker millers of Wilmington who saw little potential in Evans's designs. James Latimer, a Newport flour merchant upon hearing Evans's ideas exclaimed "Ah! Oliver, you cannot make water run uphill, you cannot make wooden millers!" Latimer's son, George, however once more saw the promise in Evans's ideas and helped him to secure patent protection over the inventions throughout 1787 and 1788. By this time Evans converted his brothers' mill at Red Clay Creek into a fully automated prototype based on his perfected designs, and the Evans brothers sent handbills and diagrams to the major milling centers of the United States offering free licensing of the designs for the first miller in each county who would commission Evans to refit their mills. Yet this campaign was to prove a major disappointment, and little commercial interest materialized.

Evans lacked patience, however, and coupled with a prickly disposition, was prone to display frustration and bewilderment towards those who could not immediately see the value of his ideas. His ideas and designs were often far ahead of their time, and the idea of a fully automated production process was difficult for contemporaries to comprehend. Evans recalled when some Brandywine millers happened to visit the Red Clay Creek mill in the early years of its operation after it was fully automated. He was alone at the mill that day and making hay in a nearby field, and purposely stayed out of sight so his visitors could observe the mill running independently without human supervision. Evans then appeared and at great length explained how the feat they witnessed was possible, and was convinced that the chance visit would bring about a breakthrough with the Brandywine millers. However, he was frustrated at reports that the millers returned to Wilmington and reported that the Evans mill was "a set of rattletraps, unworthy the notice of any man of sense". Disinterest continued even after Evans convinced a Brandywine miller to have his mill converted.

After years of persistence and attempts at marketing, Evans's designs were finally given a trial on larger scales and adopted elsewhere. A breakthrough came in 1789 when the Ellicotts, a progressively minded Quaker family in Baltimore, invited Evans to refit their mills on the Patapsco River. The refits proved a success, and Evans worked with Jonathan Ellicott to develop a modified form of Archimedean screw that could act as a horizontal conveyor to work alongside the vertically orientated bucket elevators. He added a rake-drill and conveyor belt to his designs and now possessed a full complement of materials handling machines for just about every possible configuration. In 1790, Evans moved from Newport to Wilmington and constructed a working model of his designs in the town. Evans's inventions were given a major boost when leading miller Joseph Tatnall converted his mills to the Evans system, and estimated that in one year the changes saved his operation a small fortune amounting to $37,000. Local millers quickly followed suit, and Brandywine Village was soon a showcase for Evans's milling technology. After almost a decade, the Brandywine millers were finally convinced, and within a short period, automated mills began to spread across the eastern seaboard. In 1790, upon introduction of federal patent law, Evans immediately applied for protection for his milling designs and was granted the third US patent, with his application personally examined and approved by Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of War Henry Knox, and Attorney-General Edmund Randolph.

Writer and merchant, 1790–1801
Having secured patent protection for his designs and general adoption by the Brandywine millers, Evans now turned his attention outside Delaware. His brother Joseph travelled widely to promote Evans's work, and according to some sources, by 1792 over one hundred mills were operating Evans machinery. When George Washington called upon Joseph Tatnall in 1790 to thank him for the flour he provided to feed the Continental Army during the War of Independence, he saw Evans's technology at work in the mills in Brandywine Village and was so impressed that had his own gristmill at Mount Vernon converted to the Evans system in 1791, the completion of which was overseen by Evans's brothers. In 1793, Evans sold his share in the Red Clay Creek mill and moved his family from Wilmington to Philadelphia, where he opened a store for milling supplies.

His early years in Philadelphia though were dominated by writing. Initially, Evans intended to write a pamphlet to assist millers in the construction of milling machinery, as well as promote his own automated designs. However, Evans became so engrossed in the project that he ultimately devoted several years to writing a comprehensive book on milling technology that included long chapters on the basic principles of physics, hydraulics, and mechanics; at times neglecting his family's financial security to complete it. The Young Mill-wright and Miller's Guide when it appeared consisted of five parts: 'Principles of Mechanics and Hydraulics', 'Of the different Kinds of Mills', 'Description of the Author's Improvements', 'On the Manufacturing of Grain into Flour', 'Ellicott's Plans for Building Mills', and a lengthy appendix in which Evans detailed various ideas for other inventions, such as a hot-air system of central heating. Thomas Ellicott, whose family were early adopters of Evans's designs in Baltimore, contributed a section on mill construction. Much of the theoretical work of the book was based on earlier scientific work on mechanical principles. Yet, Evans insisted that theoretical sections align with observations in the practical sections, and hence often revised standing theories to comport with experiments he conducted and observations he made. For example, he found what was written on the theoretical mechanical principles of waterwheels did not match what he could replicate in practice, so he revised them based on observation to form a "true theory" and concluded that "neither the old or new theories agree with practice, therefore we must suspect that they are founded on error. But if, what I call the true theory, should continue to agree with practice, the practitioner need not care on what it is founded."

The guide's list of subscribers was topped by George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and Edmund Randolph when the first edition appeared in print in 1795. The book proved very popular and remained a staple manual for millers for over half a century, undergoing several revisions and fifteen printed editions between 1795 and 1860. The book's popularity rested on its detailed practical explanations of mill design and construction, and as the principal guidebook for American milling it would not be superseded until after the Civil War.

After the publication of the Guide, Evans concentrated on his work as a milling supply merchant and gaining financial security through licensing his patented designs. With enough millers now using Evans's machinery, adoption began to accelerate rapidly after 1800, as did his considerable wealth from the license fees. In these years Evans concentrated on growing his commercial operations in Philadelphia, expanding his store several times, becoming an agent for English imports, and taking on blacksmiths to complete more complicated metal work for mills. All the while Evans continued to refine various elements of mill design, including patenting a new process for making millstones and developing a screw mill for grinding plaster of Paris, which was in great demand in Philadelphia for stucco work. Evans and his younger brother Evan, along with blacksmith Thomas Clark, developed a device for packing flour barrels using a wooden disc operating by a compound lever and a toggle joint.

Developing the high-pressure steam engine, 1801–06
Steam engines appeared in the United States as a source of power in the late 18th century, and living in Delaware and Philadelphia meant Evans was exposed to early examples of their application there. John Fitch had launched the first rudimentary steamboat onto the Delaware River in the late 1780s, and the Philadelphia waterworks was by 1802 operating two low-pressure steam engines to pump water from the Schuylkill River, but these were rare examples and most instances of this new technology were to be found in Europe. Much of the development of steam power had occurred in Great Britain, with Thomas Newcomen and James Watt instrumental in developing and commercializing steam power there and elsewhere in Europe, with several hundred of machines operating there in industrial and labor-saving applications by 1800.

Evans had first begun to consider the potential applications of steam power for transportation while still an apprentice in the 1780s, and had developed rudimentary designs for 'steam carriages' in the 1790s. In 1801, Evans definitively began work on making his long-held dream of a steam carriage a reality, although British engineers such as Richard Trevithick had already begun work on such ideas. Other early steam engineers, most notably Watt contemporary, William Murdoch, had developed plans for a steam-propelled carriage incorporating a heavy flywheel, in which pressure was converted directly to rotary power, however it became apparent in experimentation that a low-pressure, rotary steam engine would never be powerful enough to propel a carriage of any weight forward. Evans's attention thus turned to a reciprocating engine, not only for his steam carriage ideas, but also for industrial application. Importantly, Evans became an early proponent, like Trevithick, of 'strong steam' or high-pressure engines, an idea long resisted by Watt and earlier steam pioneers because the necessary iron making and metal working technology was lacking in America. Evans recognized that a high-pressure steam engine would be essential to the development of a steam carriage because they could be built far smaller while providing similar or greater power outputs to low-pressure equivalents. Some experiments with high-pressure steam engines had been made in Europe, most notably Trevithick's Puffing Devil, in 1801, and his later London Steam Carriage of 1803, which circumvented Watt's condenser patent by simply removing it. The prevailing fear of early steam engineering, however, was that no boiler could safely contain high-pressure steam. Watt, for example, wanted to have Trevithick imprisoned because of the danger his high-pressure engines introduced. Evans ignored the potential drawbacks, and developed similarly different designs of engines operating at high-pressure while eliminating Watt's condenser. His designs also incorporated a grasshopper beam, a double-acting cylinder, and four steam valves, very similar to Trevithick's designs. Each valve was independently operated by one of four cams. The resulting design was a high-pressure steam engine that had a higher power-to-weight ratio than Newcomen engines, setting it among the ranks of other engineers' engines in their quest to make locomotives and steamboats practical. These engines were also mechanically simpler than condensing engines, making them less costly to build and maintain, and did not require large volumes of condensing water. These features made the engines equally well suited for a variety of industrial applications.

As with the automated mill, Evans's ideas were harshly criticized by other engineers—most notably some of the Philadelphia engineering community including the influential Benjamin Latrobe. As it happened, Cornish engineer Richard Trevithick had previously developed nearly identical ideas in favor of high-pressure engines and begun to experiment with them in developing the first locomotives, but it is assumed Evans was unaware of Trevithick's work.

Constructing his designs proved far more difficult than Evans initially envisaged—with just six working steam engines in the United States at this time, and a handful of workshops with any experience making them, it took Evans much of his savings and two years to yield a working example to display to the public in 1803. This first engine was powered by a double-acting cylinder six inches in diameter and with a piston stroke length of eighteen inches. Many components, such as the flywheel and crosshead, were made of wood in order to simplify construction. The boiler, the engineering of which was critical to the safe operation of the engine, consisted of a large copper shell encased in wood and cast iron rings in order to contain the pressure. The output of the machine was approximately five horsepower. This work output was modest by contemporary standards—the low-pressure engine of the nearby waterworks produced about twelve horsepower. But his steam engine was just a fraction of the size of pre-existing machines—the waterworks machine was over twenty-five times larger in volume. Evans unveiled his engine at his store and put it to work crushing plaster of Paris and, more sensationally, sawing slabs of marble. The showmanship paid off, and thousands came to see the machine in operation, while the Philadelphia newspaper Aurora declared "a new era in the history of the steam engine."

Oruktor Amphibolos
Evans received a patent for his new steam engine in 1804, and set about looking for commercial applications. The first of his proposals was for the Lancaster Turnpike Company. He proposed to construct a steam wagon with the capacity to carry 100 barrels of flour between Philadelphia and Lancaster in two days, which by his estimation would greatly increase profits compared to the equivalent five horse wagons, for whom the trip took three days. Evans declared in his proposal that "I have no doubt but that my engines will propel boats against the current of the Mississippi, and waggons [sic] on turnpike roads with great profit." With the company unsure of the reliability and cost of the technology, the proposal was rejected.

Despite this setback, within a year Evans had found a client. The Philadelphia Board of Health was concerned with the problem of dredging and cleaning the city's dockyards and removing sandbars: in 1805 Evans convinced them to contract him to develop a steam-powered dredge. The result was the Oruktor Amphibolos, or "Amphibious Digger". The vessel consisted of a flat-bottomed scow with bucket chains to bring up mud and hooks to clear away sticks, stones and other obstacles. Power for the dredging equipment and propulsion was supplied by a high-pressure Evans engine. The end result was a craft nearly thirty feet long, twelve feet wide and weighing some seventeen tons. To move this ungainly hulk to the waterfront, as well to give a demonstration of his long-held beliefs in the possibility of land-based steam transportation, Evans mounted the hull on four wheels (twice, as the first set collapsed under the weight) and connected the engine to them in order to drive the Oruktor from his workshop through the Philadelphia streets on the way to the Schuylkill River on July 13, 1805. The Oruktor Amphibolos is thus believed to have been the first automobile in the United States, and the first motorized amphibious craft in the world. However, very few contemporary accounts of the craft survive, and Evans's tendency to exaggerate its success in his own annals make verification of its performance difficult. Although Evans himself claimed it proceeded successfully around Philadelphia (and circled his erstwhile rival Benjamin Latrobe's Philadelphia waterworks) before launching into the river and paddling at speed to Philadelphia harbor; the great weight of the craft make land-propulsion based on its limited engine capacity and jury-rigged power train fairly improbable over any significant distance. It is similarly unknown how well, if at all, the Oruktor functioned as a steamboat, and Evans's claims on this point vary significantly over the years. Nevertheless, it is known that the invention proved ineffective for its ostensible purpose as a dredger, and it was scrapped for parts by the Board of Health in 1808. Nevertheless, Evans's ideas of steam carriages were not an impossible dream. Evans would continue to promote the idea. In 1812 he published a futuristic description of a world connected by a network of shipping lines railroad tracks and steam locomotives, accurately describing what will happen in the future. long before any such potential could be realized:

"'The time will come when people will travel in stages moved by steam engines, from one city to another, almost as fast as birds fly, fifteen or twenty miles in an hour'"The Italian automobile model company, Brumm, made a 1/43 scale model of this steam carriage in their  'Old Fire' series, a series of 8 models of important early steam vehicles. It is no longer in production. It is fairly basic but it seems faithful representation judging by the images of the original to be found online. A rarely modelled example of a vehicle from this period.

Steam Engineer's Guide
Evans frequently quarrelled with fellow inventors and engineering peers over steam technology in the mid-1800s. His increasing frustration led to his premature publication of what he had hoped would be the equivalent of his earlier manual for millers—the petulantly titled The Abortion of the Young Steam Engineer's Guide. The Steam Engineer's Guide was significantly shorter than this first book and less structured in its approach. A third of the book is devoted to an ongoing argument between Evans and John Stevens (another prominent steam engineer of the day), much of which had previously appeared in the journal The Medical Repository and to which now Evans added various additional criticisms of Stevens' contentions. Evans concludes his book by renouncing inventing and any further work on his designs, complaining of the ingratitude of the public and the unprofitability of the endeavour, although this would prove to be just one of many such assertions by Evans over the coming years. Regardless, the Steam Engineer's Guide proved to be a popular work, though not on the same scale as his guide to milling, however it was the first book in the United States to make accessible to anyone ideas and techniques for steam engineering.

The book begins with an introductory discussion of the principles of steam engines and the relevant physical principles, as well as designs for the Evans high-pressure steam engine, boilers, screw-mills and others. Evans developed a similar suite of tools and tables for potential steam engineers as he had for potential millers, such as tables itemizing the heat and pressure tolerances of various metals, instructions for assembling the basic components of a steam-powered system, and schematics for useful components such as valves and boilers. Evans also used the book to justify the safety of high-pressure steam engines if properly constructed, despite the fact that by this time Evans himself had experienced several boiler explosions in his workshop. However, thermodynamics were little understood in his time. As such, many of Evans's theoretical contentions, including the 'grand principle' of steam he develops to guide the mathematical modelling of pressure and fuel in steam engines, were substantially flawed. Although Evans was to be quite successful in the development of high-pressure steam engines (and his designs were widely used), his theoretical understanding of them was limited and he was generally unable to accurately predict the inputs and outputs of his machines. The guide also indulged in a far wider range of topics of interest to Evans, including a compendium of inventions from others which he deemed to be worthy of further circulation—such as a straw-cutter and flour press developed by his brother Evan, and a horse-drawn scraper and earth mover invented by Gershom Johnson. Evans also used the opportunity to encourage government sponsorship of research:

"'If government would, at the expense of uncertainty, employ ingenious persons, in every art and science, to make with care every experiment that might lead to the extension of our knowledge of principles, carefully recording the experiments and results so that they might be fully relied on, and leaving readers to draw their own inferences, the money would be well expended; for it would tend greatly to aid the progress of improvement in the arts and sciences.'"

This suggestion stemmed from the observation that many engineers relied on the basic principles of physics and mechanics to guide their work, and yet this often required inventors and engineers to become scientists as well to obtain experimental data—something that they were rarely qualified or resourced to do. Short of government funding of such research, Evans also attempted to create in the aftermath of the Steam Engineer's Guide what he called 'The Experiment Company', which would be a private research consortium to conduct reliable experiments and gather data for the benefits of subscribed members. The venture failed and Evans could find no paying stockholders to launch it, possibly due to Evans committing the new venture to developing a steam wagon of his own design. The Franklin Institute would be founded in Philadelphia a few years after Evans's death on similar principles.

Refrigeration
Despite an incomplete understanding of the principles behind them, in some ways Evans's thinking about the potential for steam engines was once again far ahead of its time. In the postscript of the Steam Engineer's Guide, Evans noted that drawing a vacuum on water reduces its boiling point and cools it. He further observed that a vacuum would have the same effect upon ether, and the resulting cooling should be sufficient to produce ice. He went on to describe a piston vacuum pump apparatus to produce this effect, and also showed that a compression cylinder, or the compression stroke of the vacuum pump, should produce heat in a condenser. Thus Evans had produced the first detailed and theoretically coherent design for a vapor-compression refrigerator, identifying all the major components (expander, cooling coil, compressor and condenser) of a refrigeration cycle, leaving some to credit him as the 'grandfather of refrigeration'. Although Evans never developed a working model of his designs, and there is no evidence that he ever attempted to, Evans in his later life worked and associated extensively with fellow inventor Jacob Perkins on steam engines and the potential for refrigeration. Perkins would later develop and build a refrigeration device for which he received patents in 1834–1835, employing much the same principles originally put forward by Evans.

Mars Works, 1806–12
Having, in his view, perfected many of his ideas and designs for steam engines, Evans turned his attention once more to the commercial propagation of his inventions. His first steam engines had been constructed on an ad-hoc basis, often with improvised tools and workers, and he had relied heavily on blacksmiths and other metal-working shops in Philadelphia with little experience in the more precise metal-work required to build steam engines. In particular, Evans soon realized that unlike his milling machines of wood and leather he would need specialist skills, precision tools and a large foundry in order to build steam machines on a commercial basis. Thus, Evans constructed the Mars Works on a large site a few blocks north of his store in Philadelphia. The choice of name, after the Roman god of war, is thought to have been aspirational and a challenge to the Soho Foundry near Birmingham in the United Kingdom, famous for building the Watt and Boulton engines. Indeed, the completed Mars Works was one of the largest and best equipped outfits of its kind in the United States—by contemporary accounts it featured a substantial foundry, moldmaker's shop, blacksmith's shops, millstone maker, a steam engine works and a large steam engine of its own to grind materials and work wrought iron. With over thirty-five staff, the Mars Works produced a wide range of manufactures ranging from working steam engines to cast iron fittings, as well as milling and farming machines for Evans's now well-established agricultural clientele. Steam engine orders alone proved insufficient to support the extensive business costs; hence the works became highly experienced in producing all kinds of heavy machinery, contributing to Philadelphia's emergence as a leading center for such work in the 19th century. Indeed, the works even received military orders, casting naval cannons during the War of 1812. Evans also proved highly innovative in designing steam power solutions for his clients. In one example where the Mars Works was commissioned to build engines for wool processing factories in Middletown, Connecticut, Evans designed a network of accompanying pipes with radiators to heat the factory with engine exhaust.

Although there are no records as to the designs of the early steam engines produced by the Mars Works, Evans's most famous engine design appeared around 1812. Called the Columbian Engine as a patriotic gesture, it would prove to be the most advanced and successful steam engine design created by Evans—he brought to bear his now extensive experience in designing and building high-pressure steam engines. This horizontally oriented engine allowed the crankshaft and piston rod to work closely together at one end of the machine, thus reducing the need for a heavy working beam like those required for conventional engines. The piston rod itself was kept working to a straight line while by a new type of linkage wherein two sets of pivoted bars guided the movements of the working bar. This linkage is still known as the Evans straight-line linkage, though it was superseded within a few years by more precise straight line mechanisms. The Columbian was also the culmination of the grasshopper-style of steam engine. Perfected designs like the Columbian saw a popularization of the grasshopper-style and its wide use in a range of applications. In 1813 he made the decision to introduce a condenser to the Columbian design. This significantly cut the running cost to the engine, and at this point his engines were as efficient and powerful as low-pressure Watt-Boulton designs, yet far cheaper to build and smaller in size. Within a year 27 Columbian engines were operating or under construction in applications ranging from sawmilling and grain milling to the manufacturing of paper, wire and wool.

Pittsburgh Steam Engine Company
As the reputation of the Mars Works grew, so too did the demand for its products. After a few years the Mars Works began exporting its engines inland. Oliver Evans's son George was the first such order, having moved to Pittsburgh in 1809 to operate the Pittsburgh Steam Flour Mill. George and the mill were highly successful, and generated a great deal of interest in Evans's engines across the interior. However exporting engines to western Pennsylvania, Kentucky or Ohio was challenging and expensive from a logistical perspective. In 1811 Evans and George, as well as another successful steam miller and engineer Luther Stephens, founded the Pittsburgh Steam Engine Company, which in addition to engines would, like the Mars Works, produce heavy machinery and castings in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. With high demand for industrial products and relatively little industrial capacity, the Pittsburgh works added to its repertoire the capacity for brasswork, as well as producing finer products for domestic purposes like hinges and fittings.

The location of the Pittsburgh factory in the Mississippi River watershed was important in the development of high-pressure steam engines for the use in steamboats, and the new company began to promote its engines for river transport. Evans had long been a believer in the application of steam engines for maritime purposes. In his book of 1805, Evans had stated: "'The navigation of the river Mississippi, by steam engines, on the principles here laid down, has for many years been a favorite subject of the author, and among the fondest wishes of his heart'" Evans had long been an acquaintance of John Fitch, the first to build a steamboat in the United States, and the two had worked together on steam projects. The Oruktor Amphibolos was Evans's lone attempt at building his own steamboat powered by a high-pressure engine and Evans himself was often vague in appraising its capabilities. Yet Robert Fulton had found success with the North River Steamboat on the Hudson River in 1807, and thereafter steamboats became a reality. Although he used low-pressure engines, Fulton had in 1812 contacted Evans about the possibility of using Evans's engines, though that correspondence did not lead to the implementation of any of Evans's designs for Fulton's steamships. The Mississippi and tributaries experienced far stronger currents than eastern counterparts, and low-pressure steamboats lacked the power to counteract these. The Enterprise was the first viable steamboat to run on these rivers, and its designer Daniel French employed an adapted Evans' engine for the purpose. High-pressure engines became the standard on the Mississippi, though relatively few of those were actually built by the Pittsburgh works as Evans' patent on high-pressure engines was not widely enforced, and many other engine shops opened on the Mississippi that freely adapted Evans' designs for their own purposes.

Notable examples of river steamboats that were constructed by the Pittsburgh and Mars Works include the Franklin, the Aetna and the Pennsylvania. Another, christened the Oliver Evans but renamed the Constitution by its eventual owners, was lost along with the eleven crew members when its boiler exploded near Point Coupee, Louisiana. Evans was deeply distressed by the news, although he defended the safety of high-pressure engines and cited any explosions as an extremely rare occurrences.

Patent battles
Evans found himself in battles to protect his intellectual property many times throughout his career, but he pursued the cause most doggedly during his latter years. His first and most successful patents concerning flour-milling proved the most problematic to defend, and Evans' battles proved influential in setting precedent for the newly established area of federal patent law. His original patent for his automated flour-mill expired in January 1805, but Evans believed that the fourteen year patent term was too brief and petitioned the Congress to extend it. In January 1808 An Act for the Relief of Oliver Evans was passed and signed by President Jefferson, a long-time admirer of Evans's work. The act took the extraordinary step of reviving to Evans his expired patent and giving it another fourteen year term— Evans was delighted, but the move was to prove highly problematic, particularly regarding those who had implemented Evans's designs in the intervening three year period between the patent terms, as many millers had waited for Evans's patent to expire before upgrading their mills.

Evans and his agents set about aggressively collecting royalties from those using his designs. Furthermore, Evans significantly raised the license fees for his use of his patented technology, raising claims of extortion from those being asked to pay, and a great many cases ended up in court. The 1808 act had indemnified those who had adopted Evans's technologies from 1805 to 1808, but did not specify whether this indemnity was perpetual (as defendants argued) or whether it was only for the three years in question (as Evans argued). Evans by this stage of his life had also established a poor reputation for himself amongst the milling community, and his abrasive and often petty pursuit of patent rights stiffened resistance. Several major legal cases questioned whether laws to extend private patents in this manner were even constitutional, but Evans ultimately prevailed in each case.

The most bitter legal battle began in 1809. Evans sued Samuel Robinson—a miller near Baltimore who was using Evans's improvements without a license to produce a very modest amount of flour—for damages of $2,500. That sum was deemed unjustifiably high and harsh by many, and Evans's actions rallied the Baltimore community against him, and when the case was finally heard in 1812 many appeared in support of the defendant. Evans's detractors presented evidence and witnesses at the trial to press the argument that Evans did not truly invent much of what his patents protected. Although the hopper-boy was undoubtedly original, the use of bucket chains and Archimedean screws had been used since ancient times and Evans had only modified some of their features and adapted them for use in a milling context. A now retired Thomas Jefferson weighed into the debate in letters to both Evans and his detractors, questioning the philosophy of patent law and what truly defined 'invention' and 'machine' (and to some extent the validity of his claims) but ultimately defended the purpose of patent law, which was to incentivize innovation by rewarding inventors for their development and sharing of new technology. And Jefferson noted that though Evans's designs consisted of devices that had long existed beforehand, everyone had access to these and yet only Evans had thought to modify and use them in conjunction to build an automatic mill. Ultimately the jury found in favor of Evans, but it was a pyrrhic victory as Evans had put most of the milling community offside in the process, and ultimately reduced his claim against Robinson to $1,000. In response, prominent Evans critic Isaac McPherson, made submission to Congress in the wake of the trial entitled Memorial to the Congress of Sundry Citizens of the United States, Praying Relief from the Oppressive Operations of Oliver Evans' Patent, seeking to limit the compensation Evans could seek for his patent's use or for Congress to void it altogether. Although the Senate drafted a bill that would roll-back some of Evans's patent rights, it did not pass, and he continued to vigorously pursue his patent fees. It would not be until the Patent Act of 1836 that many of these issues, including what constituted originality in the context of a patent, would be addressed.

Later life and death, 1812–19
Although Evans had always suffered from bouts of depression, and bitterness towards those he felt did not appreciate his inventions, such sentiments seemed to peak in his later years. During one of his many legal battles in 1809, comments from the presiding judge sent Evans into a particular fury in which he dramatically incinerated many schematics and papers regarding his inventions, both prior and future. Evans declared at the time that inventing had led only to heartache, disappointment and under-appreciation; and committed himself to business and material acquisition for the sake of his family. Ultimately what was burned represents only a small proportion of what survives from Evans, and he did continue his interest in inventing, but the tone of Evans's later life was undoubtedly one of hostility and disappointment.

Evans gradually withdrew from the operations of his workshops, with his son George managing operations in Pittsburgh and his sons-in-law James Rush and John Muhlenberg likewise in Philadelphia. The Mars Works was by now an established entity, receiving prestigious commissions such as the engines for the Philadelphia Mint in 1816. Records indicate the Mars Works would turn out more than one hundred steam engines by the time of Evans death. In retirement Evans became increasingly consumed with pursuing his patent dues from those using his technology, which was now widespread. In 1817 he stated that his time was "wholly engrossed by law suits". Evans had become somewhat obsessed and took on a siege mentality, penning to his numerous lawyers (at its height he had fifteen working on his various cases across the United States) his final work, known as Oliver Evans to His Counsel: Who are Engaged in Defence of His Patent Rights, for the Improvements He Has Invented: Containing a Short Account of Two Out of Eighty of His Inventions, Their Rise and Progress in Despite of All Opposition and Difficulties, and Two of His Patents with Explanations. Evans undertook travel to distant areas of the country in order to find offenders. On a trip to Vermont, Evans visited various mills and then promptly engaged a lawyer there to press charges against twenty-two of them for perceived breaches of his patent rights.

In his last years Evans compiled a list, since lost, of all his inventions—eighty in total, as alluded to in the title of his last publication to his lawyers. Some of his unfinished ideas that are known include a scheme for the gas lighting of cities in the United States, a means for raising sunken ships, a machine gun, a self-oiling shaft bearing, various types of gearshift for steam carriages, a dough-kneading machine and a perpetual baking oven. In one proposal in 1814, as the British Navy threatened Washington, D.C. during the War of 1812, Evans ventured to build a steam-powered frigate, but the scheme didn't get far.

In 1816 his wife Sarah died, although the cause is unrecorded. Evans remarried two years later in April 1818 to Hetty Ward, who was many years his junior and the daughter of the New York innkeeper. In these last years Evans lived in New York with his new wife. In early 1819 Evans developed an inflammation of the lungs and, after a month of illness, died on April 15, 1819. Just four days prior, on April 11, news had reached him in New York that the Mars Works in Philadelphia had burned down, though his sons-in-law were committed to re-establishing the business and did so further outside of the city. Evans was buried at Zion Episcopal Church in Manhattan, but when that church was sold his body was moved several times until finally resting in 1890 in an unmarked common grave at Trinity Cemetery, Broadway at 157th Street, New York City.

Legacy
Undoubtedly, Evans' contributions to milling were profound and the most rapidly adopted. Within his lifetime American milling had undergone a revolution, and his designs allowed mills to be built on industrial-scales with far greater efficiency. Now a more profitable enterprise, the number of mills increased dramatically across the United States. The price of flour fell significantly, availability increased, and the automated drying and bolting processes increased the quality and fineness of flour. In turn this led to major shift in bread making—cheaper and better quality flour lowered the cost of bread production and within a generation the majority of bread consumption shifted from the home-made to store-bought. The revolution was even more far-reaching in Europe where the so-called "American System" was quickly adopted by the milling industry and triggered major increases in food production—sorely needed in a period of almost continual warfare at the turn of the 18th century.

Although several key elements of Evans's designs—such as bucket elevators and Archimedean screws—were merely modified rather than invented by him, the combination of many machines into an automated and continuous production line was a unique idea that would prove pivotal to both the Industrial Revolution and the development of mass production. Scientific and technical historians now generally credit Evans as the first in a line of industrialists that culminated with Henry Ford and the modern assembly line. His concept of industrial automation was far ahead of its time, and the paradigm shift within manufacturing towards that concept would take more than a century to be fully realized. However continuous process manufacturing would spread from Evans's milling designs, first to related industries such as brewing and baking, then eventually to a wide variety of products, as technology and prevailing opinion caught up. Evans contributions were later deemed to be so important that eminent industrial historian Sigfried Giedion would conclude that in this respect, Evans "opens a new chapter in the history of mankind".

Evans' contributions to steam were not as ground-breaking as his earlier work in milling but he played a critical role by inventing and propagating the high-pressure steam engine in the United States. Evans' engines, particularly the Columbian, were highly influential in early steam-power applications in United States (particularly in the evolution of steamboats and steam-powered industrial processes). Yet once more Evans was ahead of the curve with many of his ideas, and his death during steam's infancy in the United States meant that it would be some time before many of his ideas would come to fruition. For example, although a leading advocate for high-pressure engines, it would not be until the 1830s that such engines definitively replaced low-pressure designs. And Evans' dream of a steam wagon, notwithstanding the brave attempt of the Oruktor Amphibolos, would not see widespread adoption until even later. And unlike his earlier contributions, Evans was just one of many brilliant minds in steam technology. It would be another inventor, Richard Trevithick, working totally independently of Evans who would develop the high-pressure engine that would make that dream possible.

And yet despite his formidable record and undoubted importance in the history of technology, Evans never became a household name. In this respect Evans was his own worst enemy. He was deeply affected by a perceived lack of recognition and appreciation from his peers for his work, and his bouts of depression would lead him to act in the extreme, prematurely ending projects and vowing to give up inventing many times over the course of his life. In time these feelings turned to bitterness and vengeance towards those who criticized or doubted him, and led him to become notoriously bombastic and combative, often aggrandizing his accomplishments and fiercely denouncing critics (such as the wild exaggerations as to the success of the Oruktor Amphibolos at the end of his life). While his relentless pursuit of patent rights did indeed force people to pay him his due, the process badly damaged his reputation and made him many enemies. A leading Philadelphia merchant summed it up in 1802, stating "few if any [millers] are inclined to give pompous blockhead, Oliver Evans, the credit of inventing any of the useful contrivances in milling for which he now enjoys patents."

And yet in spite of his anguish and the weight of his detractors, Evans was steadfastly persistent in the pursuit of his ideas, a quality which Evans felt would ultimately see him triumph. The French translator of the Young Steam Engineer's Guide agreed, concluding "posterity will place his name among those who are most truly distinguished for their eminent services rendered to their country and to humanity."

title: Oliver Evans


text:
David First

David First (born August 20, 1953) is an American composer and guitarist. His music most often deals with drones and interference beats, the latter aligning his music with that of Alvin Lucier. He has led the World Casio Quartet, Joy Buzzers and The Notekillers which originally existed from 1977–81 and reformed in 2004. He is also a member of Matter Waves, which includes Kid Millions on drums and Bernard Gann on bass, and the music collective New Party Systems.

His albums include 1991's Resolver, instrumental pieces influenced by minimalism and 2002's relatively pop-oriented Universary, which consists of "songs and drones". More recent releases include 2010's We're Here to Help (Prophase Records) by The Notekillers and Privacy Issues, a 3-CD set of droneworks on the XI label.

In 1995 First, along with visual artist Patricia Smith created an opera, The Manhattan Book of the Dead, which was presented at La MaMa Experimental Theatre Club's Annex Theater in 1995 and The Washaus in Potsdam, Germany in 1996.

First received a 2001 Foundation for Contemporary Arts Grants to Artists Award.

In January 2012, the music collective, New Party Systems, an ensemble containing First, released a song First wrote (C2011 Silent Graph Music ASCAP), "We Are" –– an anthem for the 99%, with a video by director, Toni Comas.

New Party System

 * "Listen/Watch: Members of TVOTR, Liturgy Record an Occupy Wall Street Anthem", PitchFork.com.

title: David First


text:
Talk:Modern flat Earth beliefs

There are many Flat Earth Societies all around the globe
This statement deserves to be in the article.

"There are many Flat Earth Societies all around the globe"

It was removed for no reason.

RamotHacker (talk) 06:44, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

 * I removed it because it is an old joke, not very funny, but most of all because it did not support the mission to build a serious and respected encyclopedia, see WP:NOTEVERYTHING. It is not the first time this has been added to (and removed from) Flat Earth articles, so this removal followed Wikipedia consensus. Sjö (talk) 06:55, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
 * There are two "The Flat Earth Societies". One referred to in the article is at [tfes.org].  The other is at [theflatearthsociety.org].  Both are mentioned in the 2016 article from the New Yorker Inside ‘Flat Earth,’ Tila Tequila’s New Belief System and the Wokest Conspiracy Theory of 2016.  I'm not sure how to add this to the article given its current construction.  It's also not clear if either of these "organizations" are incorporated or registered in any way.--Nowa (talk) 20:48, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Orion is not a Southern Hemisphere constellation
Orion is about half in the Northern Hemisphere and half in the Southern. For example, Betelgeuse (Alpha Orionis) is at Declination +7° 24′ 26″. Correcting this requires too much rewriting so I am leaving that to others; just pointing it out. 67.167.254.120 (talk) 08:19, 28 October 2022 (UTC)Larry Siegel
 * That was simple. I deleted Orion, keeping Crux and Centaurus.
 * Also, new stuff goes to the bottom of the Talk page. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:47, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Vehement voice
The vehemence is tangible… I get that flat earth is bullshit, but Wikipedia has a neutral voice policy for a reason. Please uphold it. 96.232.183.53 (talk) 00:56, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * NPOV doesn't mean that we don't call complete bullshit bullshit. Rather, the opposite. We get more than a few readers who believe in this nonsense.  Acroterion   (talk)   01:01, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * As a corollary to "calling bullshit "bullshit", while some flat-earthers are just low-IQ and ignorant, many of these people are bad faith bullshitters, and it is appropriate to treat them with the contempt they deserve. There's plenty of Wikipedia contempt for those that dabble in "race realism", and so there is plenty of precedent to treat bad faith bullshitters in the manner that they deserve.2603:8081:3A00:414A:81A5:363F:2B7:1512 (talk) 14:33, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Domain of NPOV is opinions. There can be no neutrality about scientific facts as they are not opinions. One of Wikipedia's purposes it so stand such neutrality. Lajoswinkler (talk) 14:20, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Proofs for the skeptical
Should there not be a section with a bunch of different proofs that the earth is a rough sphere and/or a bunch of flat earth "arguments" that are clearly disproved? 146.231.177.14 (talk) 10:05, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * No. This is not what Wikipedia is for. Instead, we should link to pages that do that. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:59, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ Added a link to Empirical evidence for the spherical shape of Earth to "See also". Koopinator (talk) 18:44, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I added an external link with arguments used by flat-earthers and the arguments against them. Sjö (talk) 06:53, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Galileo and Flat Earth
Apologize in advance for my lack of education, and please correct me if i am wrong, but it seems to me the most effective way to counter the anti-white propaganda of flat earth theory, is to simply duplicate history and describe the experiment that Galileo used to prove the curvature of the earth.

As I understand it, Galileo's experiment was to compare the length of two columns of equal height, set in the earth, miles apart from each other, at a specific time of day. The length of the shadows were significantly different, and Galileo's conclusion was that the only explanation for this differnce in shadow length was that the earth was curved, as a flat earth would have resulted in both shadows being the same length.

This is an easy thought experiment intelligent people can imagine, and would go a long way towards illustrating the intellectual deficiencies of those who are incapable of imagining this simple proof.

The Article would be improved if it mentioned Galileo and his proof.2603:8081:3A00:414A:81A5:363F:2B7:1512 (talk) 14:27, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

 * I don't understand the reference about the Flat Earth "Theory" being anti-white?
 * This, and any Wikipedia page, is not to come up with new ideas about how to prove/disprove anything. The point is to write about what has been done. I'm certain this experiment has been done since, and if there is a suitable place in this article, or a different Flat Earth one, someone (or you) could write about it referencing suitable reliable sources. Capturts (talk) 04:25, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * By the way, flat-earthers correctly point out that the difference in the angle of shadows at two latitudes is equally well explained by a near sun. (But they cannot derive a consistent altitude for the sun as seen from any three latitudes.) —Tamfang (talk) 07:10, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I think this experiment might be incorrectly attributed to Galileo, who was involved in the controversy about whether the Earth goes around the Sun (e.g. based on his discovery of the moons of Jupiter), not whether it was round. Perhaps you are thinking of the experiment of Eratosthenes to determine the size of the Earth? That is described at History of geodesy; astronomers noticed this phenomenon many centuries before Galileo. -- Beland (talk) 17:35, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Modern flat Earth beliefs