text:
Bret Saberhagen

Bret William Saberhagen (born April 11, 1964) is an American former professional baseball right-handed starting pitcher. He played in Major League Baseball (MLB) for the Kansas City Royals, New York Mets, Colorado Rockies, and Boston Red Sox from 1984 through 1999, and a comeback in 2001.

Known for his blazing fastball and pinpoint control, Saberhagen was named a three-time All-Star, a two-time Cy Young Award winner, a Gold Glove Award winner, and the Most Valuable Player of the 1985 World Series as the Royals beat the St. Louis Cardinals in 7 games. He led MLB in wins and earned run average in 1989, and threw a no-hitter in 1991.

Early life
Saberhagen was born in Chicago Heights, Illinois. His parents, Linda and Bob, divorced when he was five years old. He attended Grover Cleveland High School, located in Reseda, California. Saberhagen starred in both basketball and baseball. In 1982, during his senior year, he pitched a no-hitter and was the winning pitcher in the Los Angeles City Championship game, played at Dodger Stadium. He also played football in high school.

Draft and minor leagues
Saberhagen was drafted out of high school by the Kansas City Royals in the 19th round of the 1982 Major League Baseball draft.

Kansas City Royals (1984–1991)
Saberhagen made his major league debut at the age of 19 on April 4, 1984. He made an immediate impact, compiling a 10–11 record and a 3.48 ERA. He picked up his only major league save on July 23, 1984, during the second game of a double header. He pitched three scoreless innings to close out a 7–2 Royals win over the Blue Jays and preserve the win for starter Frank Wills. The Royals made the postseason but lost to the Detroit Tigers in the American League Championship Series. Saberhagen pitched well in his first postseason start, giving up two runs in eight innings.

In 1985, the 21-year-old Saberhagen established himself as the ace of the staff. He went 20–6 with a 2.87 ERA and won the American League Cy Young Award. He led the Royals to a World Series championship and was named MVP of the World Series, pitching two complete games, including a shutout in Game 7. He was also the subject of much media attention during the Series as his wife gave birth to his first son, Drew William, on the same night of the infamous Don Denkinger call.

Saberhagen developed an odd pattern of successful seasons in odd-numbered years (1985, 1987, 1989, 1991) and poor performances in even-numbered years. In 1986, he was 7–12 with a 4.12 ERA. In 1987, another odd-numbered year, Saberhagen had an excellent year, going 18–10 with a 3.36 ERA. That record, however, was disappointing because Saberhagen had entered the All-Star break with a 15–3 record and another Cy Young Award seemingly in the bag. He pitched in the 1987 Major League Baseball All-Star Game, but he suffered a shoulder injury that hampered his second-half performance.

In 1988, the pattern continued as Saberhagen went 14–16 for the Royals with a 3.80 ERA, the second most losses in the American League. The following year, 1989, he returned to his old brilliance by compiling a record of 23–6 with a 2.16 ERA, leading both leagues with 12 complete games, and finishing third in strikeouts. Before his July 26, 1989, start against the Boston Red Sox, Saberhagen had a record of 9–5. Over the next two months, he compiled a record of 14–1 with four shutouts. He also led the league in innings pitched, complete games, and strikeout to walk ratio. For his efforts, Saberhagen won his second Cy Young Award as the American League's best pitcher.

Despite a 5–7 record, Saberhagen was selected to the 1990 American League All-Star team, primarily due to his 1989 performance. He rewarded the selection by being the winning pitcher in the 2–0 American League triumph. Saberhagen pitched only one game after the all-star break before being shelved for most of the rest of 1990 with an injury.

In 1991, Saberhagen went 13–8 with a 3.07 ERA. On August 26, he no-hit the Chicago White Sox 7-0 at Royals Stadium; to date, the no-hitter is the last thrown by a Royal.

New York Mets (1992–1995)
On December 11, 1991, Saberhagen was traded along with Bill Pecota to the New York Mets in exchange for Kevin McReynolds, Gregg Jefferies, and Keith Miller.

With the trade to the Mets, Saberhagen's odd-year, off-year pattern vanished. He struggled with injuries in 1992 and 1993, before bouncing back with a 14–4 record in a strike shortened 1994 season. That season he had more wins than walks (14 to 13). No other pitcher (as of 2005) pitching more than 150 innings had accomplished this feat since 1919. His stint with the Mets was not without controversy; on July 27, 1993, Saberhagen sprayed bleach into a group of reporters. After admitting his role in this incident, Saberhagen donated one day's pay to charity and apologized to fans and the media.

Colorado Rockies (1995)
In 1995, he joined the Colorado Rockies. While the Rockies made the playoffs as the National League Wild Card team, Saberhagen had a mostly-lost season, marred by injuries. He lost his only post-season start, Game 4 of the NLDS, as the Rockies were eliminated by the Braves on their way to a World Series win.

Saberhagen didn't pitch at all in 1996 due to injury.

Boston Red Sox (1997–1999, 2001)
His comeback with the Boston Red Sox was limited in another injury-limited 1997 season, but reached its peak in 1998, as he went 15–8 that year, winning both the Sporting News Comeback Player of the Year Award and the Tony Conigliaro Award. He had another winning season for Boston in 1999, finishing with a 10–6 record.

After missing the 2000 season, Saberhagen attempted a comeback in 2001 but pitched in only three games. He retired at the end of the season.

Post-playing career
In the late 1990s Saberhagen supervised the construction of "Bret Saberhagen's Hit and Fun", an indoor sports center and arcade which contained batting cages, laser tag, and other amusement facilities in Babylon Village, New York. The building was constructed to resemble Ebbets Field.

In 2005, he was inducted into the Kansas City Royals Hall of Fame.

Saberhagen was eligible for the 2007 ballot for the Baseball Hall of Fame. He stated if he were voted in, he would not attend the ceremony because he believes Pete Rose should be inducted. Saberhagen finished with seven votes and was not eligible for the next year's ballot. Having been retired as an active player since 2001, Saberhagen is currently eligible to be inducted under the Contemporary Baseball Era committee for players who made their greatest contributions from 1980 onwards.

In 2006, he began coaching the Calabasas High School Coyotes Varsity baseball team, in Calabasas, California. He was a primary contributor to the building of a first-class baseball field for the Varsity team there. His younger son Dalton played on the Freshman team at that time and Saberhagen's goal was to coach his son when he moved up to Varsity. However, a constant set of battles with the Las Virgines Unified School District administration—among other reasons—caused him to resign his coaching duties in October 2007. Before the 2008 season, Saberhagen returned as the head coach of the Calabasas varsity team. He currently resides in Thousand Oaks, California.

In October 2017, Saberhagen was evacuated from a Napa hotel due to the Tubbs Fire after attending a charity golf event.

Personal life
On February 9, 2019, Saberhagen married Kandace DeAngelo, the president and CEO of a medical group and a Colorado State University graduate. Kandace is a three time breast cancer survivor and together they have created their nonprofit, SabesWings, to help eliminate medical financial toxicity for cancer patients struggling to pay their bills.

Saberhagen's first wife was Janeane Inglett. They were married from 1984 to 1994, and have three children together.

Saberhagen's son, Drew William, played college baseball for the Western Carolina Catamounts and the Pepperdine Waves.

Saberhagen's oldest daughter, Brittany Saberhagen-Zachar, is the wife of Greek alum star, Jacob Zachar. The couple made ET's Happiest Celebrity Engagements of 2018.

Saberhagen's second son, Dalton Saberhagen, was a left handed pitcher for the University of Tennessee Volunteers. He was named to the 2013 SEC Community Service team and Tennessee Volunteer.

Saberhagen has two stepsons. Aidan Stolz is an aspiring writer and is a board member for the Saberhagen's nonprofit, SabesWings. Layton Stolz is his youngest stepson.

In November 2022, Saberhagen discovered information about his now-deceased biological parents with the last name Spuhler, and that he had two distant siblings who were still alive.

Other media
Saberhagen appeared as himself in the 1994 Brendan Fraser movie The Scout. In the movie, he is hired by former New York Yankees scout Al Percolo (Albert Brooks) to pitch to Percolo's phenom prospect Steve Nebraska (Brendan Fraser).

During the 1994-95 MLB strike, Saberhagen and a handful of other striking players appeared as themselves in the November 27, 1994, episode of Married With Children (Season 9, Episode 11.)

title: Bret Saberhagen


text:
Easington, Buckinghamshire

Easington is a hamlet in the civil parish of Chilton, Buckinghamshire, about 3 mi north of the Oxfordshire market town of Thame. The hamlet is between the villages of Chilton and Long Crendon and consists of around 30 houses.

The toponym is derived from Old English and evolved through Hesintone, Essintone and Easyngdon before reaching its present form.

Manor
Before the Norman conquest of England Alric, son of Goding, a thegn of Edward the Confessor, held the manors of Chilton and Easington. However, the Domesday Book records that by 1086 the Norman baron Walter Giffard held the two manors. The Domesday Book assessed the manor of Easington at five hides.

From 1387 to 1523 the manor was part of the honour of Gloucester. In 1525 Easington reverted to the Crown, which granted the manor to John Croke of Chilton Manor, in whose family it seems to have stayed until at least 1657.

The will of John Hart, proved in 1665, left a rental income of £3 per annum from the manor of Easington to fund the apprenticeship of one poor boy. In the 1920s the bequest was still being applied "as occasion arises".

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

title: Easington, Buckinghamshire


text:
C. P. Connolly

Christopher Patrick Connolly (1863–1935), better known as C.P. Connolly, was an American investigative journalist who was associated for many years with Collier's Weekly and the Muckrakers.

Connolly was a former Montana prosecutor. He is remembered in particular for his extensive reporting on the case of Leo Frank, a Jewish businessman who was convicted and sentenced to death in August 1913 for the slaying of a thirteen-year-old girl.

"I feel satisfied that the US Supreme Court will be moved to give us some relief," Frank wrote on January 4, 1915, in a series of letters he wrote to Connolly. "I receive a great deal of mail and many of the writers compliment your articles in Collier's.

Connolly also covered the Idaho trial of the leaders of the Western Federation of Miners, who were accused of the assassination in 1905 of a former Idaho governor, Frank Steunenberg, putatively in retaliation for Steunenberg's calling of federal troops to suppress what he called a union "reign of terror." Clarence Darrow defended the miners. In a surprise turn of events, the defendants, who included the union's most visible leader, one-eyed Big Bill Haywood, also a founder of the new Industrial Workers of the World (IWW), were acquitted by the jury. Connolly wrote of the case:

The press sends out to the world the overt acts of wage earners driven to desperation and suppresses the recital of the crimes which engender these conditions, though they may be a matter of public knowledge and judicial inquiry." CJRBooks - Big Trouble, by J. Anthony Lukas at archives.cjr.org

title: C. P. Connolly


text:
The Calcium Kid

The Calcium Kid is a British mockumentary comedy film which was released in 2004. It stars Orlando Bloom as a milkman and amateur boxer. Billie Piper and Michael Peña are also featured. It is directed by Alex De Rakoff and produced by Working Title Films.

Plot
Jimmy Connelly is a milkman who is thrust into the spotlight after a brutal fighter, Pete Wright, gets injured. Under manager Herbie Bush, Jimmy must fight the middleweight champion of the world, Jose Mendez.

Within the lead up to the fight with Mendez, Jimmy has to take part in a press conference, in which Bush recommends him to give Mendez fighting talk. However, this leads to Jimmy being seen as a fascist and a disgrace to England after being seen as racist.

After Jimmy realises the harm Bush has caused, he calls off the fight. As Bush and the training team look for Jimmy, they find him cleaning his old milk cart. In a negotiation to help the town in order to fight, Jimmy is persuaded to participate.

In the locker room, minutes before the fight, as Jimmy and his crew walk backstage, Wright holds a shotgun to them, whilst the camera crew is also held hostage, filming the event. Wright leads them to a room where Jimmy is forced to fight Mendez, who is also held hostage. After getting substantially battered by Mendez, Jimmy manages to fight back, but then Wright smacks his head with the gun. As Wright goes to shoot Mendez, who is praying for his life, Jimmy knocks out Wright with a single punch.

With the film crew recording the event, Jimmy becomes a hero across Britain.

Reception
The film received negative reviews from critics. On Rotten Tomatoes it has a rare overall rating of 0% based on reviews from 5 critics, with an average rating of 3.9/10.

Peter Bradshaw of the Guardian gave it 1 out of 5, mentions that the due to success of The Lord of the Rings, Orlando Bloom "puts a lot of youthful buttocks on seats, and that demographic calculation can be the only reason for releasing this shamingly bad British comedy."

Variety said Bloom was "likable enough, but it's not a strong enough performance to anchor a one-joke movie" and praised the supporting actors, but was critical of the obviously scripted mockumentary for "the sheer unbelievability of the basic premise" and the "lack of sufficient invention in the script" saying it pales in comparison to soccer mockumentary, "Mike Bassett".

Empire gave it 2 out of 5, and said "none of the integral elements of the film - script, acting or direction - gel quite as well as they might, and what's left is an over-stylised advert for milk."

title: The Calcium Kid


text:
Cholesbury

Cholesbury (recorded as Chelwardisbyry in the 13th century) is a village and former civil parish, now in the parish of Cholesbury-cum-St. Leonards, in Buckinghamshire, England, on the border with Hertfordshire. It is situated in the Chiltern Hills, about 4 mi east of Wendover, 5 mi north of Chesham and 5 mi from Berkhamsted.

Cholesbury is one of four villages comprising Cholesbury-cum-St Leonards parish. Braziers End is a hamlet which has always been closely associated with Cholesbury.

It is a rural community and most local people rely for employment on neighbouring towns, the proximity of London and the availability of broadband technology.

Geography
At 178 acre, Cholesbury is one of the smallest villages in the county and is located within Chiltern downland landscape on the upland plateau and close to the chalk escarpment which overlooks the Aylesbury Vale. At its highest point the village is some 650 ft above sea level.

Geology
The geology of the area has dictated the land use. The soil comprises gravely clay, intermixed with flints, small pebbles and öolite over a chalk formation. Several examples of puddingstones a characteristic form of this aggregate have been found locally. There are no streams in the area due to the porous chalk sub soil. In places the occurrence of clay close to the surface accounts for several natural ponds fed by springs. Until connection with mains water in the mid-20th century, the scarcity of water had necessitated the sinking of deep wells and capture of rainwater.

Land use
In contrast to nearby areas of the Chilterns more land is given over to open space, namely agricultural, both arable and pasture; paddocks; heathland and most significantly the Common on either side of which the majority of houses are arranged. Mature woodland is a feature, including a stand of beech trees which mark out the circumference of the hillfort. Some beech plantation remains formerly associated with the chair-making industry in High Wycombe. Both chalk and a small amount of clay have been extracted over the years. The latter as a raw material for pottery and more recently brick-making. Meanwhile, in more recent times flint was dug out for road making. Both activities have left their mark in the form of small mounds and shallow depressions.

Historically, many homes had access to orchards, gardens for vegetable production and pasture for domestic animals. These have largely disappeared and over the last ten years or so the increasing popularity of horse riding has created a demand for suitable land for paddocks.

Settlement
Villages in this part of the Chilterns are often set out around Greens and Commons or strung out along ridges with which they connect often without a gap to adjacent settlements. Cholesbury is consequently more closely linked in this way with the neighbouring villages of Hawridge, St Leonards and Buckland Common. The hamlet of Braziers End is closely associated with the village of Cholesbury. The name is purported to derive from braziers lit by Travellers who periodically gathered to celebrate weddings.

Until 1935 Cholesbury did not have mains water and drainage did not arrive until 1963. The road down to Chesham was frequently impassable in winter and periodic flooding has occurred even in recent years. The Second World War resulted in an influx of people escaping the London Blitz and not returning afterwards. This migration had a lasting effect with more houses built or greatly enlarged or refurbished. Transport improvements enabling daily commuting to London from the 1950s onwards also led to a further change with the growth in more affluent families which irrevocably changed the composition of the village community.

Concerns in the 1960s about uncontrolled housing development encouraged the establishment of resident's groups focused on preserving the village scene. Situated in the Chilterns AONB, and combined with national and local government planning controls there is strict enforcement of restrictions on residential building developments. This has led to a shortage in affordable and social housing. The scarcity of available property has added a premium onto house prices in Cholesbury (average selling price circa £950k as at 2007) and neighbouring villages compared to other areas in the rest of South East England.

Origins and the first settlement
The village name is Anglo Saxon in origin, and means 'Cealwald's burh' (or plateau camp). This name refers to the Iron Age hillfort known as Cholesbury Camp close to the centre of the village, which from investigations (Kimball 1933) is understood to have been constructed between 300 and 100BC, possibly on the site of an earlier settlement which is also supported by the find of a Bronze Age axe nearby. Despite the extent of the defences trading activity rather than military purpose was the predominant use of the fort over most of its period of occupation. There is evidence of iron smelting with several hearths and waste slag having been identified from archaeological investigations. The Roman conquest of Britain meant that the use of the hillfort was relatively short-lived. By the 2nd century it had been largely deserted as the result of a probable organised migration of labour from the hill plateau to valley where villa settlements were being established (Branigan 1967). More recent investigations (Gover 2001) have suggested from evidence of rectangular structures that there was a subsequent period of occupation during early medieval times. There have been finds indicating earlier settlement including during the 1960s, a Palaeolithic hand axe.

Development of the manor and village
In Edward the Confessor's time the land was part of the estate of Aluric, the King's thane and is only recorded in the Domesday Book as 'Chowdesbury', a part of the manor of Draiton valued at 100 shillings (£5). Magno le Breton who held the manor under a tenancy to one Helgist would have valued the hilltop area for its summer pasture supported by reliable springs feeding ponds. From the record of land use the area was still heavily wooded being able to sustain 200 hogs.

During this period Cholesbury still would have been a small, temporary settlement. Over the next 150 years a permanent hamlet was established remaining part of the Drayton estates and a typical example of a Chiltern strip parish. In 1091 the le Breton family although retaining ownership, passed control of the land and the income to the Knights Templar who when dissolved in 1312 passed it subsequently to the Knights Hospitaller as an endowment to the Commandery of Hogshaw. After this period Cholesbury gradually detached from Drayton Beauchamp and became a separate manor, developing into a village community indicated by the construction, within the hillfort, of an early 12th-century church dedicated to St Laurence. This is one of two churches, both incidentally called St Lawrence, to be found within hillforts in the Chilterns. The other is at West Wycombe.

By the reign of Henry III around 1248 the population was large enough to warrant Cholesbury being split off as a separate manor, still controlled by the le Bretons. The church was enlarged with the adding of a porch and its importance recognised with the appointment of a resident parson by the name of Abel. Around 1330 Thomas Perot became Lord of the Manor of the estate where Parrott's Farm is today. But independence was short-lived with its association with Drayton Beauchamp being re-established in 1336 when taken control of by Mary the Dowager Countess of Norfolk. The family granted the estate to Edward II but in 1364 it was passed to Thomas Cheyne. Full independence from then manor of Drayton Beauchamp finally came in 1541 when Robert Cheyne sold the manor to Chief Justice John Baldwin.

In 1618 John Baldwin sold the manor to one Thomas Stile, one of the attorneys of the Court of King's Bench. By 1650 the rights attaching to the Lord of the Manor were transferred to the Seare family who also held the manor in neighbouring Hawridge. Until the middle of the 18th century, Cholesbury continued to be just a chapelry under the administration of the parish of Drayton Beauchamp. The establishment Cholesbury as a separate ecclesiastical parish was sanctioned by the Bishop of Lincoln in 1756.

English Civil War
It is known that in common with many parts of the Chilterns there was much discontent with the levying of Ship Money and the oath required in support of the Protestation some of the causes of the dispute between Parliamentarians and King Charles I. As with other villages Parliamentarian troops were billeted in Cholesbury during the English Civil War and took part in skirmishes involving Prince Rupert at Chesham and Wendover.

Impact of the Poor Laws
The Darell (Daryell) family had held sway in Cholesbury from 1748 until 1814 when Edward Darvell an absentee owner and Director of the Bank of England, passed it on his death to his nephew, the Rev. John Jeffreys, Rector of Barnes, Surrey. This also signalled a change in fortunes for the village.

Cholesbury can claim one modest contribution to the reform of social policy in England. From the time of Elizabeth I a levy was imposed on property owners to fund poor relief in their parish. The amount collected increased significantly during the 18th and early 19th centuries. The increasingly desperate living available off the land in this part of the Chilterns from 1812 onwards meant the parish vestry was unable to raise sufficient funds to support the poor and in 1832 declared itself bankrupt. An account of the plight of the parish was recorded in the report to Parliament by the Poor Law Commission provided by the Rev. Henry Jeston. He had arrived as vicar in 1830, chaired vestry meetings and between 1832 and 1835 and eventually raised sufficient loans from neighbouring parishes and advances from landowners, including himself, to rescue the parish from its plight and put into effect measures to ensure the future financial security of the parish. He was mentioned in the subsequent debate which led to reform of the Poor Laws for which Herbert Spencer provided an account in his most famous book The Man Versus the State. The village recognised Jeston's achievements through raising a subscription for a stained-glassed window in his honour.

Local economy
Cholesbury stands at the crossroads of several droving routes, the Commons providing a safe place to rest their animals. In turn this regular traffic supported local trades and several alehouses over the years. By 1753 The Castle, the Maidenhead (later the Bricklayers Arms), next door to it the Queen's Head and The Slip Inn were operating for at least a period. They were able to flourish due to the boost in trade between the 18th and the early part of the 20th centuries when they were also frequented by the growing numbers of brickyard and agricultural labourers. None of these public houses has survived to the present day.

Prior to the 20th century, agriculture and woodworking had been the main employment for villagers although work was often of a casual nature, supplemented by road mending and season fruit picking when orchards were commonplace. Straw plaiting was the chief occupation of women and children during most of the 19th century. The plait was sent to Luton or London. Until the Second World War agriculture had been the principle industry in the area. In Chesham work could be found in mills and boot factories. The discovery of clay deposits in the surrounding area had been a source for small-scale pottery production since the 17th century. The demand for new houses after the First World War lead to the rapid expansion of brickmaking in the area and St Brown's brickworks was opened on the site of clayfields in Shire Lane. At its height it was producing between 3–3.5m bricks per year. In 1946 another local brickmaking company Dunton's, encouraged by the Ministry of Works rented land on an adjacent site to meet the demand for post-war reconstruction and new house building.

Since the Second World War some land has been progressively taken out of agricultural use although today there is still a significant area around the village given over to arable crops and sheep-grazing. Improvement to the road networks and public transport resulted in work being sought from further afield. The arrival of the railway to Chesham during the 1880s enabled travel to London and other conurbations. Today there are no significant employers remaining in the village. The 2001 census indicated a further change with increasing numbers of remote workers living in Cholesbury.

Demographics
The census of 1801 records there were 122 inhabitants in 25 families living in 22 houses in Cholesbury. According to the subsequent censuses the population fell between 1801 and 1861 when it was 105. It remained around this level into the 20th century and in 1931 was still only 115.

As at 2001 93.5% of the local people were recorded as of White ethnic origin. Just under 80% declared they were Christians. Some 45% of people were in employment and 21%, a significantly higher proportion than elsewhere in the district, were self-employed and over 15% were retired which was slightly higher than in nearby areas.

Notable people
Hawidge Mill (also known as Cholesbury Mill), as it strides the boundary between the two villages, became associated with members of two artists' groups, the Bloomsbury Group and the lesser known London Group around the time of the First World War. Gilbert Cannan used the mill tower as a studio and with his wife Mary Ansell frequently invited friends to stay or to rent cottages nearby. These included Katherine Mansfield and John Middleton Murry who were having an affair and lodged next door at The Gables as did Mark Gertler who between 1915–16 painted Gilbert Cannan at his Mill depicting Cannan outside the Mill with his two dogs. The black and white one had belonged to J.M. Barrie and was the inspiration for Nana in the book Peter Pan. Others visiting included D.H. Lawrence, Lady Ottoline Morrell, Compton Mackenzie, Bertrand Russell, the historian G.M. Trevelyan, the painter and interior decorator Dora Carrington, Lytton Strachey. The Cannans left the mill in 1916 and it was subsequently rented by the celebrated American actress of the day, Doris Keane.

John Haden Badley born 1865, a progressive educationalist and author who founded Bedales School now located in Steep, Hampshire in 1893, lived in Cholesbury after retiring in 1935, having served as headmaster for 42 years. After the death of his wife, Amy he returned to live in the grounds of the school until his death in 1967. General Robert Money after a distinguished military career during the First and Second World War lived in the village from the 1950s until his death in 1985. Aneurin Bevan MP lived at Asheridge Farm in the village until his death on 6 July 1960. [Nye: Beloved Patrician, David Llewelyn] In the churchyard there are at several gravestones of interest. One commemorates David Newton who died in 1878, a Royal Marine who fought at the Battle of Trafalgar in 1805. There are adjoining gravestones of two sisters Margaret Lowenfeld a pioneer of child psychology and psychotherapy who died in 1973, her sister Helena Wright known internationally for her campaigning work in birth control and family planning who died in 1982, and their cousin's wife Claire Loewenfeld who wrote books on herb gardening and nutrition and died in 1974. Margaretta Scott (Wooldridge) also lies here.

Danny Dunton was an English international motorcycle speedway rider and promoter who reached the final of the Speedway World Championship in 1950.

Landmarks and buildings
The Manor House, where the Lord of the Manor held his court periodically between 1599 and 1607, dates back to the end of the 16th century and was once considerably larger than it is today. Many of the older houses in the village also date from around this time of expansion.

Cholesbury Camp an Iron Age hillfort and scheduled monument, is the dominant feature in the landscape. It almost circular in shape, and the 10 hectare site is enclosed by a double rampart or vellum, broken on its southern side by houses. Originally, a palisade, requiring wood from between 10–15,000 trees, would have topped the earthworks. Today, the extent of the fort is demarcated by a magnificent stand of mature beech trees. Associated with the fort is a pond, known locally as the 'Holy' or 'Bury' pond, which is fed by a spring, that is perpetual: it has never been known to run dry, even in the severest of droughts. The church of St Lawrence is within the hillfort's boundary. Cholesbury Common runs through the village either side of the road.

Buildings of note include Cholesbury Windmill which was first built in 1863 as a smock mill but was rebuilt in the style of a tower mill in 1883. Cholesbury Village Hall, built in 1895 on land given by Frederick Butcher, a banker, from Tring and contemporary of the other banking dynasty, the Rothschild family who also lived in the area. Butcher was a staunch supporter of the Temperance movement and saw the importance of providing recreational facilities for working men as an alternative to the alehouses. An exterior shot of the village hall was used in the 2013 BBC television comedy Up the Women. In 1899 Henry J. Turner, J.P. bought the lordship and living at Braziers End House was the first Lord to reside in his Manor for nearly 300 years.

The 'Full Moon' public house dates from the 17th century. The pub was known as the Half Moon until 1812, the Moon from then until 1883, when it took its present name. The Full Moon was the traditional meeting place for the Lord of the Manor of Hawridge to hold court, with proceedings mainly concerned with the use of the commons, especially grazing rights and enclosures.

A stone obelisk on the boundary between Hawridge and Cholesbury was erected in 1898 to mark Queen Victoria's Diamond Jubilee the year before. Nearby a group of three puddingstones was assembled and dedicated in November 2012 on the occasion of the Diamond Jubilee of Queen Elizabeth II.

Governance
The manorial rights originating from the 12th century, which have continued to be held jointly with Hawridge since the 17th century no longer control village life. Hawridge and Cholesbury Commons Preservation Society manage the Commons, which is still owned by a Lord of the Manor. The church vestry has been succeeded by the parochial church council focusing on church affairs and its responsibilities for the village ceded to the parish council.

Cholesbury is one of four 'Hilltop Villages', the others being Hawridge, St Leonards and Buckland Common. Prior to 1934 Cholesbury had been a separate parish and part of Aylesbury Rural District. On 1 April 1934 it came together with the other villages to form the new civil parish of Cholesbury-cum-St Leonards and was also transferred to Amersham Rural District. As part of the 1974 Local Government reorganisation the rural district was succeeded by Chiltern District.

Education
Until the opening of the National School in Hawridge in 1874 education was provided in the village by a straw plaiting school also mentioned in a Select committee report of 1819. (Hay and Hay 1994) Children between the ages of 5 and 11 attend Hawridge and Cholesbury Church of England School in nearby Hawridge. A private nursery school is based at Cholesbury Village Hall.

The catchment area secondary schools are:- Chiltern Hills Academy and Chesham Grammar School in Chesham, Dr Challoner's Grammar School for boys in Amersham and – Dr Challoner's High School for girls in Little Chalfont.

Transport
Almost 95% of local residents have access to a car. Over the years the provision of buses has decreased significantly. Today a bus service runs once each way on alternative days connecting to Chesham, Tring and local villages. School buses are a valuable facility transporting children to secondary schools in Chesham and Amersham.

Sport and recreation
The cricket club was founded in 1885 with permission from the Lord of the Manor to use the Common and continues to thrive today with the First XI playing in the Premier Division of the Morrant Chiltern League.

The local area with its open views, rural lanes, commons and woodland, criss-crossed by footpaths and bridleways consequently are very popular with cyclists, walkers and horse riders. The churches of Hawridge and Cholesbury jointly hold a summer fête on the August Bank Holiday Monday, alternatively on Hawridge and Cholesbury Commons. The Vale of Aylesbury with Garth & South Berks Hunt traditionally hold a meet on Boxing Day (26 December) which draws a large crowd from the local district. The Village Hall hosts events from the organisations, of the local villages (Horticultural Society, Local History Group, Commons Preservation Society, Thursday Club) as well as 'Cholesbury Teas' on Sundays during summer months.

title: Cholesbury


text:
Talk:Geostatistics

Please start new discussions at the bottom.

"Geostatistics is a fundamentally flawed …"
Geostatistics is a fundamentally flawed variant of classical statistics because it violates the requirement of functional independence and ignores the concept of degrees of freedom. It is a scientific fact that each distance-weighted average has its own variance. Changing its name to "kriged estimate" does not alter the fact that each kriged estimate, too, has its own variance. In addition, Fisher's F-test for spatial dependence cannot be applied because kriging variances and covariances of sets of kriged estimates are simply voodoo variances. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Special:Contributions/ (talk)

 * Could the person who wrote these comments identify himself or herself? Michael Hardy 00:12, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Geostatistics is a fundamentally flawed variant of mathematical statistics because it violates the requirement of functional independence and ignores the concept of degrees of freedom. It is a scientific fact that each distance-weighted average had its own variance before it became a kriged estimate. Its rebirth as an honorific kriged estimate does not make its variance vanish without a trace. In addition, Fisher's F-test for spatial dependence cannot be applied not only because kriging variances and covariances of sets of kriged estimates are pseudo variances and covariances but even more so because sets of kriged estimates give zero degrees of freedom. The preceding is a revision of the first comment above by User:JanWMerks: JanWMerks on 22:23, March 26, 2006 — Paul August ☎ 17:39, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

 * I think more needs to be said than what is said above, before it can be taken seriously by anyone except those knowledgeable in the theory of geostatistics. Say enough, for example, so that anyone with a PhD in statistics can understand it.  Then I might help rephrase it for a broader audience than that and incorporate it into the article. Michael Hardy 22:27, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

The comment provided in the beginning of this discussion is flawed; in particular, this is due to his outright assumption that geo-stats ignore the "requirements" of statistical methodology. I would only state that this users comments in the article do not provide any discussion of views or perspective, and only serve to damage the goal for which it is stated. Geostatistics is not perfect, but remains a viable route for the study of complex phenomena over vast areas.

In BC we use geostatistics to predict the spread of the pine beatle infestation, while results may exhibit a range of predictions, it is understood that there are a tremendous number of variables which are introduced into every equation; I might also state that any failure simply improves our methods of survey and analysis. This field is important because it serves to quantify attributes and behaviour that are extremely difficult to predict without an unimaginable amount of resources dedicated to surveys and other forms of data collection.

Perhaps those who inquire about geostatistics do not want a diatribe, provided by a disgruntled statistician, as to the flaws behind the science. For those individuals who do wish to read these issues, we should provide a subheading. Finally, I state that geostatistics is a branch of mathematical statistics which will increase our understanding of all sorts of spatially varied phenomena, from weather prediction to urban systems development; so perhaps it is the concept of functional independance that is flawed, and not any minor infraction of that rule.

Bohunk 20:47, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

 * Geostatistics is a fundamentally flawed variant of mathematical statistics because it violates the requirement of functional independence and ignores the concept of degrees of freedom. It is a scientific fact that each distance-weighted average had its own variance before it became a kriged estimate. Its rebirth as an honorific kriged estimate does not make its variance vanish without a trace. As a result, Fisher's F-test for spatial dependence cannot be applied because the variance of a subset of some infinite set of distance-weighted average is as invalid a measure for variability, precision and risk as its covariance is for spatial dependence. Not surprisingly because an infinite set of distance-weighted averages gives exactly zero degrees of freedom.--Iconoclast 20:42, 16 April 2006 (UTC) ''The preceding is a revision of the first comment above by User:JanWMerks: JanWMerks on 20:43, April 16, 2006 — Paul August ☎ 18:10, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

 * Yeah, this is completely wrong. I just completed a Quantitative Methods in Geography course and there definitely was like 2 chapters about degrees of freedom. Sorry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Special:Contributions/ (talk)

=
==========================================================

The person who made the rude remarks may not have expressed himself very well, and I agree with all of you about the lack of references. A lack of references always invalidates criticism. There was also a bit of confusion about the difference between empirical measurement of spatial patterns (what most geostatistics is designed for) and statistical tests of the patterns. Geostatistics are perfectly valid for empirical measurement, it is when we want to make statistical inferences about some of them that we run into a few problems.

I have just begun to worry about this myself (I study geographic variation in animals and genes). However I can explain the main problem and give some references to get around them. The critical references (for how to avoid it!) are:

Benjamini, Y. and D. Yekutieli. 2001. The control of the false discovery rate in multiple testing under dependency. Annals of Statistics 29, 1165-1188.

Efron, B. 2007. Size, power and false discovery rates. Annals of Statistics 35, 1351-1377.

Romano, J.P. and M. Wolf. 1007. Control of generalized error rates in multiple testing. Annals of Statistics 35, 1378-1408.

Li, Y., N. Wang, M. Hong, N.D. Turner, J.R. Lupton and R.J. Carroll. Nonparametric estimation of correlation functions in longitudinal and spatial data, with application to colon carcinogenesis experiments. Annals of Statistics 35, 1608-1643.

Storey, J.D. 2002. A direct approach to false discovery rates. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society 64, 479-498.

Briefly, unlike other kinds of data, geographical (or other spatial) data are not independent because what happens at one location is likely to happen at adjacent locations. This can happen for a variety of reasons including causes which operate over a larger spatial scale than a single sampling unit (e.g. operating over several of your sample locations), and effects which spread in space. This results in a high correlation between sample values close together, but a decreasing correlation with distance. There is a large literature on measuring this, under the term 'spatial autocorrelation' as well as under the term 'geostatistics'. Statistically it is a nuisance becuase most statistical tests assume each sample is independent--manifestly not true for spatial data. The references I gave above get at this problem. I also like the Baysian approach that one of you suggested, and this may be able to avoid the spatial autocorrelation problem with suitable design. We need to find a good statistician to describe for us the exact way to do this! As I said, I'm just learning this myself, but I thought I would share the references with you anyway.

Oddly enough the first people to attack this seem to be medical researchers because phenomena in one body or tissue location can affect adjacent cells and tissues. So don't be put off by the non-standard applications in the above references! Chlamydera 17:48, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

"To user(s) who have been editing this page"
To user(s) who have been editing this page recently: Please be civil in the editing of wikis. If you don't agree with the principles of geostats that's fine, but wikipedia is not the place for direct attacks. Thank you.

S lyster 02:35, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

"POV"
The first three paragraphs of this article were highly POV, most likely Original research, and I removed them. Geostatistical methods are not only widely accepted by the scientific community, they are required by regulatory agencies, at least in the U.S. We use them every day where I work. Antandrus (talk) 03:57, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

 * I edited the argument against geostatistics, now the article is accessable without having to read through a thousand words about how shitty it is. Could someone please add some info regarding the history of this discipline, and possibly expand on its socio-political, and geoscience roles, as these are increasingly evident in a wide range of applications and scientific disciplines.

 * Potential areas of discussion:
 * Weather analysis, urban planning, invasive species analysis, geological surveys, water sustainability applications, economic development and planning, military strategy, psychological and criminal profiling, socio-economic disparities across local/regional/global scales, epidemiology, anthropology, historical applications. There are a lot of applications, so you think of some more.

 * if confused remember the golden rule: KISS - Keep It Simple Stupid.

 * Bohunk 20:47, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I also removed the POV paragraphs that were re-inserted. Basic kriging is a simple Bayesian technique, with a Gaussian Process prior (encapsulated in the kernel function) and a Gaussian posterior. See the elementary tutorial at. I don't understand the objections at all --- the estimate of the posterior does have a covariance, see equation (21) of the tutorial.

Now, I don't understand a lot of the elaborations in geostatistics. I don't know what pseudo-kriging is, it may be wrong. But, it seems excessive to dismiss an entire field because one algorithm may be incorrect.

hike395 21:28, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

 * I want to keep it simple because I like to understand my question. Did or didn't each distance-weighted average have its own variance before it metamorphosed into a kriged estimate or kriged estimator in the 1960s when geostatistics was hailed as a new scnience. The rest are details! --Iconoclast 16:14, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I believe that none of us understand your objection or your question. Let's break it down into little steps for us non-geostatisticians, without the jargon, OK? Let's assume that we're estimating some quantity (say, a mineral concentration), as a function of spatial location on the surface of the Earth. As I understand the steps of kriging (cast into a Bayesian framework): Please explain: which of these steps do you think is incorrect? These are the steps outlined in the Gaussian Process tutorial, corresponding to basic kriging. Or, are you objecting to some other geostatistical method, other than basic kriging?
 * 1) Start with a Gaussian Process prior. This means that, for any N points on the surface, there is a multivariate normal distribution that is the prior distribution of the mineral concentration. The covariance of this distribution is the kernel function that is used in the kriging. In geostats terms, the kernel function is the semivariogram, although empirical semivariograms are not guaranteed to be positive semi-definite.
 * Now, we measure the concentration at N-1 of these points. These measurements themselves are assumed to have a normal distribution. The standard kriging setup seems to be homoscedastic (equal variance for each measurement), but that isn't required.
 * 1) Finally, we can compute the posterior estimate of the concentration at the Nth point on the surface. This point can have arbitrary position. The posterior estimate is in the form of a normal distribution, also. The mean and variance of the posterior at any point can be computed from von Mises' formula --- it's simply an (N-1)x(N-1) inversion of the kernel matrix evaluated at the N-1 measurement points.

hike395 04:50, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

 * I think I finally understand the controversy here --- I should have known, many heated controversies in statistics often boil down to Bayesian vs. frequentist assumptions. I tried to clarify this in a paragraph at kriging --- please check to see if I got this right. -- hike395 16:02, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

"I have temporarily attributed …"
I have temporarily attributed Dr. Merks' edits explicitly to himself. However, I believe that paragraph (and the citations to Merks' papers) now probably violate the Vanity guidelines. What do other editors think? -- hike395 02:09, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

 * I agree completely. Even it it were not an issue of vanity, I still would remove it due to the fact that the sentence is written in jargon and has a sentence structure that is unintelligible to me. There is also an issue of WP:VERIFY. --mav 03:09, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

 * In addition, the recent edit calling geostatistics "an invalid variant of mathematical statistics" is a violation of NPOV and I support keeping this out of the article. Until a significant portion of the geostatistical community agrees that it is "an invalid variant of mathematical statistics", and this can be reliably referenced, this is both a violation of WP:NPOV and WP:NOR.  Thanks, Antandrus  (talk) 17:43, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that calculated (functionally dependent) values do not give degrees of freedom whereas n measured values with equal weighting factors give n-1 degrees of freedom for the set and 2(n-1) for the ordered set. The variance of a subset of some infinite set of distance-weighted averages-cum-kriged estimates gives zero degrees of freedom. Figure out where the zero kriging variance and the unity kriging covariance come from and why oversmoothing is forbidden. Geostatistics was based on a human error (Krige, Matheron and their students didn't know that each distance-weighted average had its own variance) but progressed into scientific hoax when geostatistics converted Bre-X's bogus grades and Busang's barren rock into phantom gold resource whereas analysis of variance proved that Bre-X's Busang was a salting scam. Read my reviews of the first three geostatistics textbooks. And read what Philip and Watson's Matheronian Geostatistics; Quo Vadis? wrote many years ago. Somebody should read Shurtz's original thoughts. Start to think in statistical terms and and stop that mindless talk about a violation of WP's NPOV. Please tell me how to NPOV about a voodoo variant of mathematical statistics? --Iconoclast 23:57, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

 * OK, now we're getting somewhere, because we have a reference

 * This is an unreviewed position paper, sadly. I don't have access to this paper online -- I'll have to go to the library and see what it says.

 * Do you have a more complete reference for Shurtz?

 * By definition, you cannot have an NPOV discussion of a "voodoo variant of mathematical statistics". You have to write it like a Martian would, if he/she were looking down on the controversy from millions of miles away. A NPOV statement would be something like

 * A critical assumption of geostatistics is that spatial dependency can be treated as a stochastic process. Some people in the field disagree that this assumption accurately models real geological data. Other practitioners recommend using frequentist statistical tests to test the assumption of spatial dependency.

 * Unfortunately, you cannot talk about the analysis of variance to detect the Bre-X scam, because that is your own work (as I understand our vanity guidelines).

 * -- hike395 01:51, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

My only thought regarding these comments is that hike395 has the right idea. If we are to establish an objective article regarding geostatistics, then these issues should be discussed in a subtopic; it is not that geostatistics is without controversy, but that all statistics are invariably capable of distorting the facts. In the end it is up to the individual, and their own integrity and ethics, to determine the truth based on the best statistical method available. Geostatistics is a valid research tool, but it is not independent of statistical methodology; in fact, every method of statistical analysis may be applied to spatial problems. Geostatistics is simply the recognition that natural phenomena always has a spatial dimension, and seeks to accurately represent that aspect of the statistical information gathered.

For instance, you could not accurately determine, representing on a map, the distribution of AIDS in Africa without testing every individual on the continent for the disease, then connecting them to a GPS so that their position could be properly verified, and finally by giving each individual on the map a single dot (making the map unreadable).

Geostatistics would collect the surveyed information (collected by doctors or clinics), and use that to infer the total population with AIDS in that city or country. Depending on the area that we wish to cover, we wil need to establish our survey methodology, keeping in mind that the more areas that we test, and the more thoroughly we test, the more accurate our information will be. In the case of Bre-X, it just goes to show that if it is in an individuals interests, and it is within their power, then information can be manipulated or changed to their benefit. Im sure that if tobacco companies controlled the US health statistical data on tobacco, then we would all be smoking for our health.

Bohunk 16:08, 22 April 2006 (PDT)

 * Critical thinkers will realize soon enough that infinite sets of distance-weighted averages-cum-kriged estimates are the equivalent of perpetual motion in data acquistion, and that functional independence and degrees of freedom are the equivalent of the laws of thermodynamics. Visit, play Clark and the Kriging Game by entering coordinates beyond her sample space, and figure out how many distance-weighted averages fail to converge on the arithmetic mean and how many variances of distance-weighted averages-cum-kriged estimates fail to converge on the Central Limit Theorem. Let me know which coordinates fail this simple heuristic test. --Iconoclast 20:06, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

More references

 * 1) Armstrong, M and Champigny, N, 1988, A Study on Kriging Small Blocks, CIM Bulletin, Vol 82, No 923
 * 2) Clark, I, 1979, Practical Geostatistics, Applied Science Publishers, London
 * 3) David, M, 1977, Geostatistical Ore Reserve Estimation, Elsevier Scientific Publishing Company, Amsterdam
 * 4) Huff, D, 1954, How to lie with statistics, Penguin Books, New York
 * 5) Journel, A G and Huijbregts, C J, 1978, Mining Geostatistics, Academic Press Inc, London
 * 6) Lipschutz, S, 1961, Theory and Problems of Probability, McCraw-Hill Book Company, New York
 * 7) Moore, D S, 1979, Statistics: Concepts and Controversies, W H Freeman and Company, San Francisco
 * 8) Reichmann, W J, 1961, Use and abuse of statistics, Penguin Books, Middlesex, England
 * 9) Volk, W, 1980, Applied Statistics for Engineers, Krieger Publishing Company, Huntington, New York

All Wikipedians and all Krige's men cannot put the distance-weighted average and its variance together again.
Bringing knowledge of the pseudo science of assuming, kriging, smoothing and rigging he rules of mathematical statistics to the world.--Iconoclast 20:37, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

"I have to say that JanWMerks arguments are extremely convoluted"
I have to say that JanWMerks arguments are extremely convoluted. Two main points: (1) Redundancy - as I understand it, there is one basic argument repeated several times; (2) Grammar - sentence structure lacks sophistication, and if someone who didn't understand the topic were to read this they would learn nothing. If you get the opportunity check his link:. I quote: "mineral sampling expert, consultant, lecturer, author, scambuster, whistleblower, 'a bit of a rebel', 'gadfly', ' iconoclast', 'pariah'" - obviously a little over the top. SCmurky 04:38, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Mr JanWMerks, you should discuss this topic with someone as opposed to continually skewing it. I am more than willing to discuss a compromise, and am open to your pov, with good references there is no reason that your thoughts should be excluded. However to simplify this topic into an argument over Kriging and Bre-X is to completely disregard significant contributions to a variety of fields.

You may feel that Geostats does not deserve any regard, I do not believe this is the place to make that statement; instead all positions must be presented accurately, leave the reader to make their mind. SCmurky 02:15, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

 * Hi, Bohunk|SCmurky, Most monikers were given by geostatisticians whose only compromise is to violate the requirement of functional independence a little but not a lot!!! Take a look at Armstrong and Champigny's A Study on Kriging Small Blocks and find out what smoothing is all about. I've asked Krige himself what happened to the variance of the single distance-weighted average before is metamorphosed into a kriged estimate. It's such a simple question but Krige and the geostatocracy rather assume, krige and smooth than respond. By the way, it was IAMG's current President who called me an iconoclast. I kinda like that! By the way, let's try to make progress in solving this problem by asking some authority to respond. Here's the first problem! In geostatistics, the distance-weighted average lost its variance even before it was reborn as an honorific kriged estimate because ...? Perhaps solving one problem at a time is the Wikipedian way to bring scientific integrity and knowledge to the world.--Iconoclast 16:22, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I agree with that. I did contact some people, from a few different universities, statisticians and otherwise, including my own; only a few expressed interest, although I did get some references and one or two potential contributors.

[] - This seems like a good reference with plenty of material.

To conclude, and please argue if you disagree or add if I miss something, the remaining issues are:
 * 1) The inclusion of the formulae for statistical and geostatistical theory, in a context which defines their differences and explains this divergence in order to highlight the concepts behind geostatistics (why it was invented).
 * 2) Improve article structure, we should determine the context of arguments (however valid) throughout the article, in particular to avoid their repetition.
 * 3) Kriging should remain a small portion of this article, that is not all that geostatistics consists of; a more elaborate explanation of that topic should remain within the primary kriging article.

I simply feel that any argument should come after the objective explanation of the subject.

SCmurky 03:37, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

 * I've a simple mind! First, I really want to know is why the variance of the single-distance-weighted average didn't make it into the geostatistical body of knowledge. My second question is why the true variance of the single distance-weighted average is replaced with the false variance of a set of degrees-of-freedom and variance-deprived distance-weighted averages. Is that too much to ask?--Iconoclast 16:07, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I figured that out already; I am saying that there is more to geostatistics than distance weigted average (do you mean Inverse distance weighting), geostatistics follows mathematical modelling, in particular linear interpolation. Perhaps you could state in the article, with support from mathematica/statistical formulas, what you are stating above. We need to include the math to discuss it further.

I dont think that this article will satisfy your "why" question, at least not without an objective inclusion of historical and formula based information. SCmurky 03:03, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

 * Geostatistics is a unique case of junk science by consensus. When Professor D G Krige was working at the Witwatersrand gold reef complex in South Africa in the early 1950s, he discovered that two or more gold assays, determined in samples selected at positions with different coordinates in a finite sample space, define an infinite set of distance-weighted averages. Professor Dr G Matheron was so taken with Krige’s aptitude in augmenting measured data with distance-weighted averages that he conferred on him the ubiquitous krige eponym.

 * Krige and Matheron were unaware that one-to-one correspondence between distance-weighted averages and variances is inviolable in mathematical statistics. That is why geostatisticians replaced the true variance of the distance-weighted average with the false kriging variance of a set of kriged estimates. In time, kriging variances and kriging covariances of sets of kriged estimates became the cornerstones of geostatistics. Incredibly, the kriging variance of a set of kriged estimates is as invalid a measure for variability, precision and risk as the kriging covariance is for spatial dependence simply because geostatistics violates the requirement of functional independence and ignores the concept of degrees of freedom. Blatantly biased, shamelessly self-serving peer review turned geostatistics into a junk science by consensus.

 * All it takes to reconcile irreconcilable differences is the ingenuiyt of the geostatistical mind!--Iconoclast 23:42, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Do you have a reference, say within a mathematical or statistical journal perhaps? If you check the links below, you will see that pattern analysis is a mathematical discipline which has been studied in far more applications than kriging. I am curious as to what you think geostatistics is exactly. I see it as nothing more than the study of the mathematical/statistical properties of spatial data (eg measured tree sizes or a geological survey). SCmurky 08:18, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Wiki Links

 * 1) Atmospheric dispersion modeling
 * 2) Support vector machine
 * 3) Numerical weather prediction
 * 4) Kernel methods
 * 5) Global climate model - read flux correction
 * 6) Linear interpolation
 * 7) Polynomial interpolation
 * 8) Spline interpolation
 * 9) Bilinear interpolation

From RfC
This business is not totally quack. Not all geostats depend on Gaussian or Bayesian analyses - one can screw up stats and make a mess of it in any field. Yes, Geostatistics as a reasonably new field has its share of screw-ups I am sure. But that is not to say it is all pseudo-science. Criminology for one makes great, successful use of it (Crime mapping). The argument here could apply to medicine - "some doctors do stupid things, therefore Western medicine is pseudoscience". That "History" piece needs total rewrite, though - very unencyclopedic the way it looks right now; I would suggest pulling it out altogether until it's tweaked.Bridesmill 05:05, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Page refactor
I found the previous version of this page very difficult to follow, so for the sake of readability, I've refactored the page. In particular I have organized the discussions chronologically as is the established WP talk page practice. I also broke separate discussions into sections with section headings, indented comments to indicate a change of writer and signed unsigned comments. If you think I have somehow misrepresented anyones comments —I apologize — please correct as you see fit, but please try to follow standard WP practice for talkpage discussions. Thanks — Paul August ☎ 17:50, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Just one simple question
Hello SCmurky and other interested Wikipedians, Here’s a simple question that would get geostatistics going again. To have or not to have a variance, that’s the question! The rest are details!! Does or doesn’t every distance-weighted average have its own variance? Mutually exclusive responses are yes or no but geostatisticians may have conditional responses.

If the answer is YES, complete: Yes but ... and fill in the blanks. If the answer is NO, complete: No because ... and fill in the blanks. If the answer is conditional, study the properties of variances in Volk’s "Applied Statistics for Engineers" before responding. For example, the distance-weighted average does have a variance but the kriged estimate doesn't is a cute but scientifically nonsensical response. IAMG’s brass and JMG’s brains should be requested not only to respond to the same question but also to assign the most gifted geostatistical mind to complete geostatistics. JWM--Iconoclast 18:42, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Whether or not every distance-weighted average-turned-honorific kriged estimate has its own variance has been troubling the geostatistical fraternity since the early 1990s. Here are a few more possible answers : Who knows? Who wants to know? Who cares? What's wrong with a little kriging? Why does this ... (fill in the blanks!) not assume, krige and smooth like the rest of us? JWM. --Iconoclast 23:02, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Cut from article
The question under dispute is whether every distance-weighted average had its own variance before it was reborn as an honorific but variance-deprived kriged estimate. The seminal work that led to the loss of the variance of the distance-weighted average can be condensed as follows: Professor D G Krige discovered at the Witwatersrand gold reef complex in South Africa in the early 1950s that two or more gold assays, determined in samples selected at positions with different coordinates in a finite sample space, define an infinite set of distance-weighted averages. Professor Dr G Matheron was so taken with Krige’s aptitude in augmenting small sets of measured data in large samples spaces with subsets of infinite sets of distance-weighted averages that he conferred on Krige the ubiquitous krige eponym. Krige and Matheron did not know that one-to-one correspondence between distance-weighted averages and variances is inviolable in mathematical statistics, which explains why pioneering geostatisticians replaced the true variance of the distance-weighted average with the false variance of a set of distance-weighted averages. In time, kriging variances and kriging covariances of sets of kriged estimates became the cornerstones of geostatistics. However, the false variance of a set of kriged estimates is as meaningless a measure for variability, precision and risk as its false covariance is for spatial dependence. Geostatistics is an invalid variant of mathematical statistics because it violates the requirement of functional independence and ignores the concept of degrees of freedom. JanWMerks --Iconoclast 21:33, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I removed the above from the article space - given that it was signed, I am assuming that JWM erroneously placed a talk item on the article page; accidents happen. I am assuming also that non of this was intended as article, based on the OR & reasonably vitriolic slam of Matheson & Krige. I'm also statrting to see that the argument seems to focus on one set of geostats applications, in particularl focussing on assay methods; whihc is not what the article is about - 'undue weight(ing)' applies to WP articles as well as stats...Bridesmill 21:55, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

You're right. I'm new to the Wikipedian way. I've noticed Wikipedian soft- and back-pedaling because significant examples of junk science are lacking and scientific fraud has mutated into scientific misconduct. Matheron's new science of geostatistics is behind Bre-X where bogus grades and barren rock created a phantom gold resource. Most investors lost money, many lost all their savings and a few committed suicide. Read what Krige wrote in the early 1990s when Bre-X was to come and I was polite. Much more is posted on my own website. Vitriolic slam? You've seen nothing yet until you read my retro-reviews!! Some Bre-X evidence is posted on. Who posted it? Why? JWM --Iconoclast 22:56, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm not interested in Bre-X conspiracy theories. Bre-X scammed people because they were a bunch of crooks, and there was a lot more to it than just the fact they used (if they did) geostats - salting the samples for one thing. Yes, geostats are very susceptible to abuse; but that does not make them useless. The concept is used in crime-mapping, where it works to catch crooks. So to slam-dunk it as junk science because some people a. don't know how to use it or b. some people abuse the hell out of it (as happens with many disciplines) is just flawed logic. There needs to be a piece here on the weaknesses and susceptibilities, but let's not throw the baby out with the bath-water.Bridesmill 23:22, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Neither am I. The point is that mathematical statistics proved that Bre-X was a salting scam several months before the boss salter vanished, and could have done so based on duplicate bogus assays for the first three to five boreholes. My point of contention remains that the true variance of the single-distance-weighted average cannot possibly be replaced with the false variance of a set of distance-weighted averages. Calling it an honorific kriged estimate does not make it functionally independent. JWM.--Iconoclast 00:35, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Clark and the Kriging Game
Visit ai-geostats and open Clark and the Kriging Game. Clark’s hypothetical uranium data can be found in her 1979 Practical Geostatistics, Chapter 4. Estimation, Figure 4.1 and Table 4.1. Clark has posted this third geostatistics texbook on her website, and a retro-review is posted on mine.

Step 1. Go to Cells E10 and E11 on Sheet Kriging game and replace Clark’s coordinates of 1,265 m Easting and 713 m Northing within her sample space with 4,500 m Easting and 4,500 m Northing beyond this sample space. Observe that the distance-weighted average and arithmetic mean are numerically identical at 366 ppm, and that the variance of the weighted average and the variance of the arithmetic mean are numerically identical at 896 ppm^2. Go to Sheet xy=0-5000 and look at the distance between Clark’s sample space and the distance-weighted average of 366 ppm for the entered coordinates. Cells G42.46 show that all weighting factors converge on 1/n=0.2 whereas Cells E33 and F33 show that the degrees of freedom converge on df=n-1.

Step 2. Go to Cells E10 and E11 on Sheet Kriging game and re-enter Clark’s coordinates of 1,265 m Easting and 713 m Northing. Go to Sheet xy=0-5000 and observe the distance-weighted average of 371 ppm for this point within Clark’s sample space! Go to Sheet x=725 y=1300 and take another look! The distance-weighted average still has its own variance and confidence limits!!

Step 3. It’s easy to enter more coordinates because there’re infinite pairs to work with! Those beyond Clark’s sample space give distance-weighted averages numerically identical to the arithmetic mean of 366 ppm, and variances numerically identical to the Central Limit Theorem (896 ppm^2). Yet, didn't the variance of the distance-weighted average disappear somewhere in Clark’s sample space? It did so in Krige’s Witwatersrand complex, didn’t it? What’s wrong with this spreadsheet?

Step 4. Go to Fisher’s F-test for spatial dependence and look at Cells E5.E17. This test is applied to the variance of a random walk and the variance of a systematic walk, both of which visit each hypothetically sampled position only once. Given that the calculated value of F=4,480/2,161=2.07 is below the tabulated value of F0.05;4;8=3.84 at 5% probability, it follows that Clark’s hypothetical uranium data do no display a significant degree of spatial dependence in her sample space. Hence, the distance-weighted average of 371 ppm at Clark’s coordinates is not necessarily an unbiased estimate. Therefore, interpolation within Clark's sample space is impermissible and extrapolation beyond it is a scientific fraud.

I’ve worked with area-, count-, density-, distance-, length-, mass- and volume-weighted averages. Each of these weighted averages has its own variance. In early 1990s, we found out that the true variance of the distance-weighted average was replaced with the false kriging variance of some set of kriged estimates. The formula for the variance of a set of measured values with variable weights is also posted on the above website. It is simple to show that this formula converges on the Central Limit Theorem as all weighting factors converge on 1/n. Print out the read me file and do read it because my case against geostatistics is ongoing! Start thinking about unbiased statistical inferences such as confidence limits.

Geostatistics with its pseudo kriging variances and covariances is beyond salvation. Give each distance-weighted average its own variance and mathematical statistics is back. JWM --Iconoclast 22:48, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Look, Ive done all that. You dont need to argue with me over this, I believe you. I dont think its a conspiracy, I do think you should calm down. Lets add your information in a logical, respectful way. Start by adding a degrees of freedom subcategory, explain the formula, discuss its implications, inform as to its abscence in geostats. SCmurky 00:00, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Why didn't you tell me? I'm trying to explain my case against geostatistics in a clear and concise manner and nobody gives meaningful feedback. JWM. --Iconoclast 02:09, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I believe you've received plenty of feedback but you chose to ignore it. Your case against this subject is, in terms of WP policies (Soapbox and WP:OR in particular) irrelevant. Unfortunately, we're a bit preoccupied right now working on useful content & dealing with meatspace issues, but this article has not been forgotten.Bridesmill 02:31, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I was talking about meaningful feedback such as why does it make sense to replace the genuine variance of a SINGLE distance-weighted average with the pseudo variance of a SET of degrees-of-freedom and variance-deprived functionally dependent distance-weighted averages. JWM. --Iconoclast 04:38, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm Over It
Y'know, Ive tried to be accomodating, but I find that this article is going nowhere. I have said before that geostatistics is a broader category than kriging, Ive also attempted to clarify your comments so that they may be comprehended by readers, but you persist with a singular, argumentative, and non-referenced POV statements. In any case, I shall remove any reference to kriging within this article, I believe that this argument will be better placed in the Kriging page than here, and I will not interfere with that page; but as for geostatistics, I will begin to explore statistical problem solving in geography. SCmurky 02:55, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll be pleased to peruse your argument that the variance of the distance-weighted average is not replaced with the kriging variance of a set of kriged estimate when you're exploring non-geostatistical but statistical problem solving in geography. JWM.--Iconoclast 04:31, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Start over
What about Krige? Did he really not know (ie. implies that he is ignorant), or did he choose to ignore this rule; given the reserved tone of your recent edits, I wont delete this outright, but I still need clarification to make this statement NPOV. Keep in mind however, that the majority of this controversy section should be in the kriging article, with only a short summary in the geostats article. SCmurky 00:16, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I was not so much surprised that Krige didn’t know that each distance-weighted average gold grade had its own variance. After all, the world shunned South Africa in the early 1950s and Sichelt didn’t teach Krige the right statistical stuff. What really surprised me was that Matheron and his students didn’t know either that each functionally dependent value (of a set of independently measured values) has its own variance. Krige was drafted twice to shut up this geostatistical agnostic but to no avail. Peruse Matheron’s ponderous Foreword to Journel and Huijbregts’ 1978 Mining Geostatistics. One cannot help but feel sorry for Krige! My retro-review of this textbook explains why mathematical statistics didn’t stand a chance under Matheron’s tutelage. I subscribe to ai-geostats as part of my efforts to put more mathematical statistics into geostatistics. You know much more than I do about where to post this sort of information. Thanks for your message! JWM.--Iconoclast 16:07, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Turning original research into criticism that observes Wikipedia policies
The criticism by Merks in the section "Criticism" was original research, and as such, cannot be part of Wikipedia. HOWEVER, the fact that Merks criticizes geostatistics *is* verifiable, notable, and as such can be reported by Wikipedia. I wrote the text so that it conveys (as well as I could) the criticism, without violating WP:V, WP:OR, and WP:NPOV. Renato (talk) 14:35, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

 * In the criticism section, I removed claims against or in favor of the criticism, because it is controversial, and no suitable references could be found. The only references against the criticism (and claiming that the scientific community refutes it) are a few excerpts from internet chats, which is not strong enough. There are no references for a broad support of the criticism -- only one more example. If one has suitable references for either side, please add it. Renato (talk) 09:01, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

The criticism by Merks STILL violates WP:V, WP:OR and WP:NPOV. Additionally, the comments here: Indicate that his comments and violate WP:COI. Being hired as a consultant is not an indication of expertise, see Merks own Ben-X conspiracy notes, and is clear evidence of COI by the user. Dbhart42 (talk) 18:43, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Merks's expertise and credibility are supported by several company executives, who regularly hire his consulting services.

Geostatistics is not "Statistics in Geography" and not "Spatial Statistics"
The article as of now 2. July 2009 the article makes the impression that geostatistics is a vague collection of statistical methods in geography. Hart (1954) Central tendency in areal distributions, Economic Geography, 30, 48-59 might have coid the term in that way. However to my understanding the modern meaning of the the word is something like "statistical theory and application for processes with continues spatial index" (Cressie 1993 Statistics of spatial data, Wiley) and looking at the citations list of the article with the word geostatistics in it, which I know and contain geostatistics in the title:

4. Clark I, 1979, Practical Geostatistics, Applied Science Publishers, London 5. David, M, 1977, Geostatistical Ore Reserve Estimation, Elsevier Scientific Publishing Company, Amsterdam 7. Chilès, J.P., Delfiner, P. 1999. Geostatistics: modelling spatial uncertainty, Wiley Series in Probability and Mathematical Statistics, 695 pp. 8. Deutsch, C.V., Journel, A.G, 1997. GSLIB: Geostatistical Software Library and User's Guide (Applied Geostatistics Series), Second Edition, Oxford University Press, 369 pp., http://www.gslib.com/ 9. Deutsch, C.V., 2002. Geostatistical Reservoir Modeling, Oxford University Press, 384 pp., http://www.statios.com/WinGslib/index.html 10. Isaaks, E.H., Srivastava R.M.: Applied Geostatistics. 1989. 12. Journel, A G and Huijbregts, 1978, Mining Geostatistics, Academic Press 14. Lantuéjoul, C. 2002. Geostatistical simulation: models and algorithms. Springer, 256 pp. 16. Matheron, G. 1962. Traité de géostatistique appliquée. Tome 1, Editions Technip, Paris, 334 pp. 19. Merks, J W, 1992, Geostatistics or voodoo science, The Northern Miner, May 18 21. Myers, Donald E.; "What Is Geostatistics? 22. Philip, G M and Watson, D F, 1986, Matheronian Geostatistics;                  Quo Vadis?, Mathematical Geology, Vol 18, No 1  26. Wackernagel, H. 2003. Multivariate geostatistics,                    Third edition, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 387 pp.

all understand geostatistics in as something that solves or are related to the Problem of interpolating and (to a minor degree) analysing a random function (process) with a continues index observed at some locations, coming from the geological definition of Matheron of geostatistics focusing of inferring ore reserves. The same hold true of

Modern spatiotemporal Geostatistics by G. Christakos or Nonparametric Geostatistics von S. Henley Applied Geostatistics with SGeMS: A User's Guide von Nicolas Remy, Alexandre Boucher, und Jianbing Wu von Cambridge University Press (Gebundene Ausgabe - 22. Januar 2009) An Introduction to Applied Geostatistics von Edward H. Isaaks, Isaaks, und R. Mohan Srivastava von Oxford Univ Pr (Taschenbuch - 11. Januar 1990)

Basic Linear Geostatistics von Margaret Armstrong von Springer, Berlin (Taschenbuch - November 1997)

In the same way spatial statistics is not a part of geostatistics but the other way round geostatistics a spatial case of spatial statistics. However the article totally misinterprets the term:

Going the through the current TOC: * 1 Background o 1.1 Role of statistics in geography (As said, geography is not the background of geostatistcs,                   even though Toblers law of geography is of the cited in this context. The typical background is (mineral resource) geology.) * 2 Spatial data and descriptive statistics o 2.1 Boundary delineation (that spatial statistics) o 2.2 Modifiable areal units (thats spatial statistics) o 2.3 Spatial aggregation/scale problem (The upscaling problem is a topic in geostatistics, but not as aggregation of political units,                                        but as mean values over (e.g. mining) blocks) * 3 Descriptive spatial statistics (point pattern analysis is a part of spatial statistics but not of geostatistics,                   see e.g. Cressie 1993 as cited above) o 3.1 Spatial measures of central tendency (thats related to districts and not random fields) o 3.2 Spatial measures of dispersion (this part is completely uninformative) * 4 Topology (topology is not statistics, not even geostatistics, its merily a geospatial problem) o 4.1 Topology rules (still not statistics) * 5 Computational Geometry (computational geometry is not even statistics) * 6 Topography (might be interpolated with geostatistics, but that is not mentioned here) * 7 Sampling methodology (geospatial sampling seams to be the first word after the first chapter actually related to the subject of geostatistics) * 8 Criticism (This is clearly a paragraph criticizing kriging which is a major subject of geostatistics.                          Although I disagree with the cited work by Merks, it is the first part acutally related to geostatistics.                                  Strictly speaking however this chapter belongs to Kriging and not here.) * 9 Related software (this are all real geostatistical software packages and should stay here) * 10 Notes (Should go to references and it is fully sufficient to cite Mr. Merks once) * 11 References (Most of them are really good references on geostatistics, but most of them are not cited above) * 12 See also (Only the kriging link seams appropriate) * 13 External links (quite ok)

In conclusion, the article is talking about the wrong thing, although in a previous age somebody knowing the subject seamed to have added references, software and web-sites.

In my view a current article must explain the main purpose: interpolation, conditional simulation, the main methodology: analysing spatial dependence, and the main methods of geostatistics: Variograms, Kriging (Matheronian Geostatistics), Baysian Maximum Entropy (following the works of George Christakos, e.g. http://www.unc.edu/depts/case/BMElab/), Multiple point methods like SNESIM and FILTERSIM (following the works of Journel, Strebell and Caers,e.g. http://pangea.stanford.edu/groups/iamg/workshop1.pdf ).

I propose is to remove chapters 1-7 and to rewrite the whole article in that sense.

Any comments.

Boostat (talk) 15:58, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

 * I am much in favor that someone who is knowledgeable in this area does revamp the article to to provide a verifiable and neutral description of Geostatistics. So, Boostat, I completely support you if you are willing to do this. Renato (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:47, 3 July 2009 (UTC).

 * It looks like the best course would be to move much of what is already here into the existing (but only 6 line) article statistical geography. A brief mention of earlier terminology would be a suitable way to point readers to that article if neccesary. Melcombe (talk) 09:07, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

 * I also agree that this article needs a rewrite, with much of the content more appropriate for other articles. Tdslk (talk) 20:49, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

 * Right on!!! About time that some new people got involved. I agree that this article could use a rewrite. One distinction that I would like to understand is that between Geostatistics, Spatial Statistics, and Statistical Geography. Also, is Spatial Statistics the same thing as Spatial Analysis? As both of these topics are in the Spatial Analysis article. Thanks for the comments, I would like to get this article up to shape; just don't go on a mass deleting frenzy, as this article used to be nothing more than a rant against kriging. If we can nail down the appropriate topics that each section should be listed under, then I am all for moving information around. Seeing how I created much of the ToC, I will reply to Boostat's ToC.

Going the through the current TOC:

1. Background

2. Spatial data and descriptive statistics - should these be in the spatial statistics page or the statistical geography page? 3. Descriptive spatial statistics (point pattern analysis is a part of spatial statistics but not of geostatistics, see e.g. Cressie 1993 as cited above) - How so? 4. Topology (topology is not statistics, not even geostatistics, its merily a geospatial problem) 5. Computational Geometry (computational geometry is not even statistics) I don't know where this came from
 * 1) Role of statistics in geography
 * As said, geography is not the background of geostatistcs, even though Toblers law of geography is of the cited in this context. The typical background is (mineral resource) geology.
 * Change it. If you can track down a definition, with a good citation, then I think it should be added.
 * 1) Boundary delineation - (spatial statistics)
 * 2) Modifiable areal units - (spatial statistics)
 * 3) Spatial aggregation/scale problem (The upscaling problem is a topic in geostatistics, but not as aggregation of political units, but as mean values over (e.g. mining) blocks)
 * 1) Spatial measures of central tendency (thats related to districts and not random fields) - I think this point needs clarification
 * 2) Spatial measures of dispersion (this part is completely uninformative) - there is no information to link to on wikipedia, there should be articles with these topics, including their mathematical formulae.
 * 1) Topology rules (still not statistics) - Quite right, but shouldn't this article give some impression of the kind of problems that geostatistics is trying to solve.

6. Topography (might be interpolated with geostatistics, but that is not mentioned here)

7. Sampling methodology (geospatial sampling seams to be the first word after the first chapter actually related to the subject of geostatistics) Perhaps this could form the basis of the new article

8. Criticism (This is clearly a paragraph criticizing kriging which is a major subject of geostatistics. Although I disagree with the cited work by Merks, it is the first part actually related to geostatistics. Strictly speaking however this chapter belongs to Kriging and not here.) '''This should be relegated to the kriging article, and not have any relationship with the geostatistics article, as kriging is simply a tool within geostatistics. If people want to know more information about the tool, then they can review the kriging article.'''

9. Related software (this are all real geostatistical software packages and should stay here)

10. Notes (Should go to references and it is fully sufficient to cite Mr. Merks once)

11. References (Most of them are really good references on geostatistics, but most of them are not cited above)

12. See also (Only the kriging link seams appropriate)

13. External links (quite ok)

SCmurky (talk) 19:20, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Moving text to statistical geography
I have made a start by moving some blocks of text to statistical geography, given that there seems to be aggreement above. At present everything that was present is in either article. I think it would be best to delete the sections still here which have essentially no content (i.e. Computational Geometry, Topography, Statistical sampling) and to concentrate on what needs to be said about geostatistics. At present the photo which was here is in both articles, as I don't know whether it really is relevant to "geostatistics". Melcombe (talk) 11:33, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

 * I found some awesome images on the NRCAN site. I have downloaded them, and have asked for permission to publish them on Wikipedia. SCmurky (talk) 22:58, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Regarding your edits. While I believe that they are likely for the best, I can't get over the feeling that the article now offers nothing. It is little more than a short intro, with a rant about kriging at the end. SCmurky (talk) 00:36, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Remodeling of this page
Dear Wikipedia authors,

I write this note in the name of a group of scientists from various universities in North America and Europe specialised in the domain of geostatistics and its application in hydrology, petroleum engineering and mining.

We have the project of providing to the public a wikipedia page that has an encyclopedic character, describing history, methods and tools currently used in geostatistics.

In our opinion, the current content of the "geostatistics" page is poorly informative, subjectively written and controversial. We think Dr Merks has a right to have his voice heard and to claim his opinions, but if those opinions are not supported by peer-reviewed publications, wikipedia is not the place for this. There are thousands of other scientists, with peer-reviewed publications, who need to have their work made available to the public through Wikipedia.

We are currently working on a new structure of the page and content that will be more informative. When we will update the current page, we will sent to the broad geostatistical community invitations to review and modify this content. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregoire.mariethoz (talk • contribs) 19:07, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That's great news. I'm not from this community, but have been following things here, and I'm very glad that experts on this area are remodeling the page. Renato (talk) 20:21, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Terrific! I thoroughly agree that this page needs to be rethought. Tdslk (talk) 22:16, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

-

Remodeling
Dear Wikipedia authors,

We substantially changed the content of this page to include an introduction to some of the fundamental concepts in geostatistics. This work is ongoing and additions will come, especially to describe the various methods with more details. We plan to add several pages for the different techniques.

You will notice that we removed the criticism section by Mr. Merks. We believe it expressed a personal (although legitimate) point of view that does not reflect the current state of the discipline and is not shared by scientists of the domain. There is no way of fitting a single person's opinions on a page dealing with the subject in such a broad manner. Wikipedia is not a podium for individual claims. Mr. Merks made a website to express his opinions, and we acknowledge it by including it in the links section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregoire.mariethoz (talk • contribs) 05:38, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

 * A point regarding Merks is whether his complaints are really against "kriging", rather than geostatistics in general. The new stuff looks a good start, but you might want to incorporate inline citations as you go along. If you are new here, Wikipedia has tools to help do this, see Citing sources, which will help both you and future editors. Melcombe (talk) 08:57, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

 * Thank you for the citations link, we will do this soon. What I understand is that Merks essentially attacks traditional covariance-based geostatistics and especially certain forms of kriging. These criticisms cannot be generalized to the entire discipline of geostatistics. Indicator-based methods, object-based methods, multiple-point methods (to name a few) are not covariance-based.

 * This page has improved a lot. It's really inviting now to improve it further. I hope to spend some more time on it soon. Thanks! EdzerPebesma —Preceding undated comment added 20:35, 6 September 2010 (UTC).

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Geostatistics. 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/20020605050231/http://www.ento.vt.edu/~sharov/PopEcol/popecol.html to http://www.ento.vt.edu/~sharov/PopEcol/popecol.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20020424165227/http://www.geovista.psu.edu/sites/geocomp99/Gc99/044/gc_044.htm to http://www.geovista.psu.edu/sites/geocomp99/Gc99/044/gc_044.htm

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) 10:07, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

title: Talk:Geostatistics


text:
Talk:Robert Rich

There are 2 different people named Robert Rich, the other of which is an ambient music artist. So, this is a problem where the link for Robert Rich redirects to someone who used that name as a pseudonym, and has nothing to do with the ambient artist. I just added him as a collaborator with Steve Roach under ambient musicians. ~heidimo

title: Talk:Robert Rich


text:
List of U.S. state and territory mottos

Most of the United States' 50 states have a state motto, as do the District of Columbia and 3 of its territories. A motto is a phrase intended to formally describe the general motivation or intention of an organization. State mottos can sometimes be found on state seals or state flags. Some states have officially designated a state motto by an act of the state legislature, whereas other states have the motto only as an element of their seals. The motto of the United States itself is In God We Trust, proclaimed by Congress and signed into law by President Dwight D. Eisenhower on July 30, 1956. The motto "E pluribus unum" (Latin for 'out of many, one') was approved for use on the Great Seal of the United States in 1782, but was never adopted as the national motto through legislative action.

South Carolina has two official mottos, both which are in Latin. Kentucky, North Dakota, and Vermont also have two mottos, one in Latin and the other in English. All other states and territories have only one motto, except for Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands, which do not have any mottos. English and Latin are the most-used languages for state mottos, each used by 25 states and territories. Seven states and territories use another language, of which each language is only used once. Eight states and two territories have their mottos on their state quarter; thirty-eight states and four territories have their mottos on their state seals.

The dates given are, where possible, the earliest date that the motto was used in an official sense. Some state mottos are not official but are on the official state seal; in these cases the adoption date of the seal is given. The earliest use of a current motto is that of Puerto Rico, Joannes est nomen ejus, granted to the island by the Spanish in 1511.

title: List of U.S. state and territory mottos


text:
Clifton Reynes

Clifton Reynes is a village and civil parish in the unitary authority area of the City of Milton Keynes, Buckinghamshire, England. It is about a mile east of Olney. It shares a joint parish council with Newton Blossomville. It is situated roughly 8 mi north of Central Milton Keynes and 9 mi west of Bedford.

Extent
It is bounded, on the North, by the River Great Ouse, by which this parish is separated from Lavendon and Cold Brayfield; on the East, by Newton-Blossomville; on the South, by Petsoe and Emberton; and on the West, by the latter and by Olney.

Origin of name
The village name comes in two parts: the former name 'Clifton' is Anglo Saxon in origin and means 'Cliff farm', referring to the village's position on a cliff on a bank of the River Ouse. The latter name 'Reynes' refers to the ancient lords of the manor of the village, whose family name this was. In the Domesday Book on 1086 Clifton Reynes was recorded as Cliftone.

Buildings of note
The parish church dedicated to St Mary is (unusually for a Buckinghamshire church) completely castellated: even the gables are embattled. The tower is thought to be Norman; however, the top is later probably 14th century. The majority of the building is of the 13th, 14th and 15th centuries and the nave is unusually tall. Features of interest include the 14th-century font and the medieval monuments of the Reynes family. These include two pairs of wooden effigies; one pair is of Ralph and Amabel de Reynes (ca. 1320–30) and the other is unidentified and slightly earlier.

title: Clifton Reynes


text:
PTEN

PTEN may mean:

 * Prime Time Entertainment Network
 * PTEN (gene), a human tumour suppressor gene on chromosome 10 (and its protein: phosphatase and tensin homolog)

title: PTEN


text:
Cold Brayfield

Cold Brayfield is a village and civil parish in the unitary authority area of the City of Milton Keynes, Buckinghamshire, England. It is about 3 mi east of Olney, 8 mi west of Bedford, and 10 mi north of Central Milton Keynes on the Bedfordshire border. Nearby places are Lavendon and Turvey (over the bridge on the Bedfordshire side of the River Great Ouse). It is in the civil parish of Newton Blossomville.

Cold Brayfield is probably the place named as 'Bragenfelda' in a charter of 967. The elements of the name, 'brain' and 'field' are interpreted to mean 'open country on the crown of a hill'. The village name is later recorded in twelfth- and thirteenth-century charters as 'Brauefeld', 'Brawefeld' or 'Brauufeld', and becomes 'Cold Brayfield' towards the end of the sixteenth century. The basis for the prefix 'Cold' is not recorded.

The Church of England parish church is dedicated to St Mary the Virgin.

title: Cold Brayfield


text:
Fermat (crater)

Fermat is a lunar impact crater located to the west of the Rupes Altai escarpment. To the west-southwest is the larger crater Sacrobosco, and to the southwest is the irregular Pons. It is 39 kilometers in diameter and two kilometers deep.

The rim of Fermat is worn and somewhat irregular, but still possesses an outer rampart. The north rim is indented by a double crater formation that includes Fermat A. The floor is relatively flat and does not have a central rise. The crater is from the Pre-Imbrian period, 4.55 to 3.85 billion years ago.

It is named for 17th century French mathematician Pierre de Fermat.

Satellite craters
By convention these features are identified on lunar maps by placing the letter on the side of the crater midpoint that is closest to Fermat.

title: Fermat (crater)