text:
User talk:Rebrane/Archive1

Hello Rebrane, welcome to Wikipedia.

You might find these links helpful in creating new pages or helping with the above tasks: How to edit a page, How to write a great article, Naming conventions, Manual of Style. You should read our policies at some point too.

If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian!

Angela. 03:36, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Stephan's Quintet image
The image is free if credited, as it says on the usage rights page. Nicholas 09:47, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Image
Thank you for uploading Image:EnterpriseNX01.jpg. Its copyright status is unclear, so it may have to be deleted. Please leave a note on the image page about the source of the image. Thank you. Rebrane 21:31, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

 * Thanks for the kind templated message, but I could really care less if it gets deleted. The Trek pages are nothing but havens to a bunch of whiners. Feel free to message this guy: Cburnett, since he's the supreme overlord of the Trek land on Wikipedia. If he wants to keep the image around, then he can deal with it. Cyberia23 23:09, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Apostolic Council and Council of Jerusalem
These pages sure could use some help, perhaps you're interested?

Self-induced abortion vfd.
Thank you for voting to keep the article on self-induced abortion. I promise to continue working to develop and improve this article. -- BD2412 talk 15:20, 2005 Jun 17 (UTC)

USS Harry S. Truman (CVN-75)
OK, we're both civilized people, and I don't see any reason to take this to the conflict resolution page, but I will ask why the {navy-stub} tag was removed. Admittedly, the page is a bit larger than a stub, but so much more could be said about the aircraft carrier. TomStar81 23:25, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * Hi Tomstar, you answered your own question. I agree entirely -- the page is larger than a stub but is still shorter than it should be. I think the or  tags are preferable for this sort of article. But you're entitled to your opinion too, and if you think it's a stub or that the tag will help the article grow, then go ahead and re-add it. Eliot 30 June 2005 16:23 (UTC)

Jorge Pinzón
Thanks for recreating (properly) that article. If you can, could you give some reference somewhere to enable folks to verify it somewhat? Any recordings, discussion an independent website? I ask because finding verification from an Anglophone Google has been pretty tough sledding, and you might have access to these things. It would help the article greatly. Again, thanks for improving it. Geogre 04:30, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Still nothing eh? Well, I suppose VfD is possible.  I'd hate to see that, though.  Just some method for users to verify, learn more, and expand the stub would be a big help. Geogre 17:28, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me. Any honest effort at making a strong article is always fine by me. I speedy when I see a lack of effort, lack of energy, and, most particularly, when the material simply doesn't give readers a chance to learn more. A univocal "this is a fact" article, to me, is unencyclopedic, because it closes down contexts rather than opening them up, and if Clean Up can't help an article because the subject is inaccessible to the editors, we sort of have to have the article be pretty good right out of the gate. The more obscure the subject, the more vital that there be references, but no way would I consider it bad faith. It's never personal. Geogre 17:00, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Blanking pages
I understand what you are trying to do here, but it causes several problems. Special:Shortpages is one of the most useful tools for detecting vandalism, and having deliberately blanked pages makes it harder to find those that have been maliciously blanked. Blanked pages will also appear on Special:Uncategorizedpages and Special:Deadendpages, making those tools less useful. For this reason, and others, not having blank pages has long been policy. See also Blank pages. - SimonP 16:14, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

Sinking of the Rainbow Warrior
FYI;

Added this to discussion page.

Rebrane has done some good work, but removed information about the police enquiry which captured the agents/spies. The effect is to present the matter as if the French owned up to poor judgement, rather than commited a crime and were caught by cops. The result is, intentionally or not, a generally French slant (e.g. changing 'murder' investigation to 'homocide', when New Zealand law has no crime of homocide). I note, at the risk of provoking a re-write on another page, there was discussion on the DGSE site, where 'murder' was settled on as a reasonable description. I do not think there is any need to go as far as referring to the bombing as terrorism (which New Zealanders routinely did long before Bush made the term popular). I do think the article needs some balancing, if not the restoration of the deleted material. Will leave this a while for any comments before stepping in.

S. Somasegar
Hello Rebrane,

I've made some changes to S. Somasegar including removing the tag you had put there. Please see my explanation on Talk:S. Somasegar. Bottom line - it seems to me that the strongest criteria for a VfD would be non-notability. I am on the fence on non-notability, a better article might establish notability - but based on the article's history you may feel more strongly on this than I do.

Thanks --Cje 08:19, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Rebrane
I am extremely pissed at you! I WAS NOT THE SAME PERSON WHO WAS VOTING BEFORE! This is exactly what i didnt want wikipedia to become. Now i cant even vote. I want you to send me a respond ASAP

 * Comment is from anonymous user 200.73.82.173, who is mad because I pointed out that he is a sock puppet voting in Votes for deletion/2005 Michelle Bachelet Scandals. More evidence for the 'VfD is a cancer on Wikipedia' file. Eliot 22:48, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Justin Yoder
Hello! Thank you for expanding the article. I see the information you used isn't from the film about him. Can you add a source for that info you added? - Mgm|(talk) 22:01, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Samuel Alito
Hello, thanks for you note. I was actually just putting a comment on the Article Talk page. I agree with you that we should be discussing this. I look forward to working with you. Best, Johntex\talk 19:10, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Awesome Mozilla Trick
Thanks for sharing that great trick on your User page, that is definitely a real time saver. One click faster than the Wikipedia/Google search bar plug-in. Very nice. Best, Johntex\talk 22:11, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Scooter Libby image
Thank-you for replacing the Scooter Libby image at CIA leak grand jury investigation. --FloNight 21:58, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Chris Connolly
Look mate, I don't know what you're trying to achieve by removing a succession box from the Chris Connolly page, but I am not going to stand for it. Spend your time providing meaningful information to the encyclopedia, not deleting it. Disgraceful >:( Rogerthat 10:19, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

FPMR
''"revert vandalism"

Do you imagine this to be convincing, or even inventive? --TJive 21:16, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

 * I consider changing an internal link to point to an unrelated article to be vandalism. Kind of like going around changing links to George W. Bush would be vandalism. Eliot 21:19, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

 * So Pinochet's "presidency" is unrelated to military dictatorship? Interesting, that seems to be the opposite argument presented in the change's disfavor.

 * Sorry, it won't fly. But I will accept presidency .  Somehow I think you would still object.  --TJive 21:29, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

 * I believe that military dictatorship is the more precise term, and that insisting on the less-descriptive "President of Chile" link is POV pushing. The distinction is especially important considering the subject of the article. Eliot 21:38, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

 * Pinochet's presidency is a fact. That he was President of Chile is a fact.  The closest thing to POV terminology in this discussion is "dictatorship" (which is a POV I do not disagree with).  What is bizarre is that not only are you accusing me of "pushing" a "POV" that I do not hold (that Pinochet was not a dictator), but that you non-chalantly label this perfectly valid stylistic dispute "vandalism".

 * ''The distinction is especially important considering the subject of the article

 * Excuse me, are you attempting to contextualize the group based upon a harsher characterization of its opponent? Who is POV pushing, again?  --TJive 21:54, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

 * Obviously we've been misreading each other, if your edit was a stylistic one. These articles are constantly being vandalized, so I apologize for mistaking your edit for something it wasn't.

 * Let me try to explain what I meant. There is a difference between Pinochet and other Presidents of Chile. This difference is essentially captured by the term 'military dictatorship.' This difference is also fundamentally important to the topic of the article. This is what I meant by 'the distinction is important considering the subject of the article.' And trying to elide the distinction would be, I think, an inappropriate POV, but clearly nobody is attempting to do that. Sorry, again, for misreading you. Eliot 23:38, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

 * I realize that there is a fundamental distinction in this regard as far as a "presidency" but the emphasis on the point seems to me only having the intention of relativizing the merits of the FPMR. Conversely, this is also often seen (keeping in relation to Chile) with reference to the "democratically elected" Salvador Allende, where not particularly relevant or conducive to the topic and facts at hand.  It becomes not even so much bias in contextualizing but the author's personal sneer.

 * That is why I am among those who oppose the affixation of "dictator" as a general rule, because it brings in all sorts of POV, OR, and verifiability issues that editors are neither competent or objective enough to deal with (hence List of dictators). But as I said, this wasn't even my intention in my initial edit, where I added the link for "military dictatorship" to begin with (as opposed to the rather unencyclopedic and IMO borderline juvenile "dictatorial rule").  "Presidency" sidelines the question of NPOV entirely in favor of what I saw as the most grammatically/stylistically preferable option.  I still intend to work towards this.

 * And of course the only reason this is an issue is because of the edit war, which wouldn't be a factor if it weren't for the anon who follows me (I likely would not have bothered with this page again otherwise). This edit summary sums up his raison d'être quite nicely:  "Pinochet "presidency", Castro "regime", TJive "dumbass""  Push one POV, water down another, and pester me.

 * Thanks for taking a step back to look at the actual issue. --TJive 00:22, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally, you can get an idea what I'm dealing with by the latest talk comment from the [half]-anon in question. Here's an edit from today that provoked his ire. Practically the same thing restated, he summarily reverted and even deleted the picture (it is offensive to the sensibilities of the PROC, after all). --TJive 06:21, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

 * Yes, I looked at your edit history and that of the anon. And here's an example of the sort of POV pushing that is very common on any article having to do with Chilean politics or history: Eliot 13:53, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Mediation
Does this case still require mediation? --Fasten 11:33, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Justin Yoder
I've been visiting old articles on my creations list lately and I wanted to say a belated thank you for adding a reference to this one last September. :) Here have a flower. - Mgm|(talk) 10:34, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Yarmuth
I found your edit here amusing. You were totally right to make the change, but I'm guessing you aren't a Louisville native... for some reason the question "Where did you go to school?" here by default refers to high school. It's a bit of a running joke we have that local people consider high school (sports) affiliation to be more important than college affiliation, so it was totally a "Louisville" thing to do to mention his high school above all else. --W.marsh 18:22, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

cleanup?
Could you please start initiating a dialogue on the related talk pages when you put tags like {cleanup} on articles? Instantiations of {cleanup}, {npov} and various other tags tell readers to go to the related talk page for the discussion. If you, the contributor who placed the tag, doesn't initiate the dialogue, who is going to do so? We aren't mind readers. We shouldn't have to guess at why you think the tag applies. If you don't say WHY you think the tag pertains, how can the rest of us know when your concerns have been addressed, and the tag can be erased?

I put a note asking you to return to this page to finish the work of your tag placement.

Cheers! -- Geo Swan 00:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

title: User talk:Rebrane/Archive1


text:
Trait theory

In psychology, trait theory (also called dispositional theory) is an approach to the study of human personality. Trait theorists are primarily interested in the measurement of traits, which can be defined as habitual patterns of behavior, thought, and emotion. According to this perspective, traits are aspects of personality that are relatively stable over time, differ across individuals (e.g. some people are outgoing whereas others are not), are relatively consistent over situations, and influence behaviour. Traits are in contrast to states, which are more transitory dispositions.

In some theories and systems, traits are something a person either has or does not have, but in many others traits are dimensions such as extraversion vs. introversion, with each person rating somewhere along this spectrum.

Trait theory suggests that some natural behaviours may give someone an advantage in a position of leadership.

There are two approaches to define traits: as internal causal properties or as purely descriptive summaries. The internal causal definition states that traits influence our behaviours, leading us to do things in line with that trait. On the other hand, traits as descriptive summaries are descriptions of our actions that do not try to infer causality.

History
Gordon Allport was an early pioneer in the study of traits. This early work was viewed as the beginning of the modern psychological study of personality. He also referred to traits within his work as dispositions. In his approach, "cardinal" traits are those that dominate and shape a person's behavior; their ruling passions/obsessions, such as a need for money, fame etc. By contrast, "central" traits such as honesty are characteristics found in some degree in every person – and finally "secondary" traits are those seen only in certain circumstances (such as particular likes or dislikes that a very close friend may know), which are included to provide a complete picture of human complexity.

A wide variety of alternative theories and scales were later developed, including:
 * Raymond Cattell's 16PF Questionnaire
 * J. P. Guilford's Structure of Intellect
 * Henry Murray's System of Needs
 * Timothy Leary's Interpersonal circumplex
 * Myers–Briggs Type Indicator
 * Gray's Biopsychological theory of personality

Currently, two general approaches are the most popular:

 * Eysenck Personality Questionnaire, (EPQ) ("the three-factor model"). Using factor analysis Hans Eysenck suggested that personality is reducible to three major traits: neuroticism, extraversion, and psychoticism.
 * Big Five personality traits, ("the five-factor model"). Many psychologists currently believe that five factors are sufficient: neuroticism, extraversion, openness to experience, agreeableness, and conscientiousness.

Trait theory in cross-cultural use
Cultures are widely known and accepted as being different in varying degrees. This can make the study of personality difficult as meaning and the expression of traits may be different within cultural groups. Trait theory uses a hierarchy of traits in order to separate culture from the traits; it can be said the culture is ignored in order to focus on the individual traits and how they are connected to the individual. Gordon Allport's trait theory not only served as a foundational approach within personality psychology, but also is continued to be viewed and discussed by other disciplines such as anthropology because of how he approached culture within trait theory.

Trait theory tends to focus on the individual over the situation in which they are in. This focus has relaxed within modern studies allowing for a consideration of the external factors outside of the self. As the focus becomes more relaxed (but still prominent as it is a main part of the theory) research expands.

Testing methodology, and factors
Both the EPQ and Big Five approaches extensively use self-report questionnaires. The factors are intended to be orthogonal (uncorrelated), though there are often small positive correlations between factors. The five factor model in particular has been criticized for losing the orthogonal structure between factors. Hans Eysenck has argued that fewer factors are superior to a larger number of partly related ones. Although these two approaches are comparable because of the use of factor analysis to construct hierarchical taxonomies, they differ in the organization and number of factors.

Whatever the causes, psychoticism marks the two approaches apart, as the five factor model contains no such trait. Moreover, psychoticism, unlike any of the other factors in either approach, does not fit a normal distribution curve. Indeed, scores are rarely high, thus skewing a normal distribution. However, when they are high, there is considerable overlap with psychiatric conditions such as antisocial and schizoid personality disorders. Similarly, high scorers on neuroticism are more susceptible to sleep and psychosomatic disorders. Five factor approaches can also predict future mental disorders.

Lower-order factors

There are two higher-order factors that both taxonomies clearly share: extraversion and neuroticism. Both approaches broadly accept that extraversion is associated with sociability and positive affect, whereas neuroticism is associated with emotional instability and negative affect.

Many lower-order factors, or facets, are similar between the two taxonomies. For instance, both approaches contain factors for sociability/gregariousness, for activity levels, and for assertiveness within the higher order factor extraversion. However, there are differences too. First, the three-factor approach contains nine lower-order factors and the five-factor approach has six.

Eysenck's psychoticism factor incorporates some of the polar opposites of the lower order factors of openness, agreeableness and conscientiousness. A high scorer on tough-mindedness in psychoticism would score low on tender-mindedness in agreeableness. Most of the differences between the taxonomies stem from the three factor model's emphasis on fewer high-order factors.

Causality
Although both major trait models are descriptive, only the three-factor model offers a detailed causal explanation. Eysenck suggests that different personality traits are caused by the properties of the brain, which themselves are the result of genetic factors. In particular, the three-factor model identifies the reticular system and the limbic system in the brain as key components that mediate cortical arousal and emotional responses respectively. Eysenck advocates that extraverts have low levels of cortical arousal and introverts have high levels, leading extraverts to seek out more stimulation from socializing and being venturesome. Moreover, Eysenck surmised that there would be an optimal level of arousal, after which inhibition would occur and that this would be different for each person.

In a similar vein, the three-factor approach theorizes that neuroticism is mediated by levels of arousal in the limbic system and that individual differences arise because of variable activation thresholds between people. Therefore, highly neurotic people when presented with minor stressors, will exceed this threshold, whereas people low in neuroticism will not exceed normal activation levels, even when presented with large stressors. By contrast, proponents of the five-factor approach assume a role of genetics and environment but offer no explicit causal explanation.

Given this emphasis on biology in the three-factor approach, it would be expected that the third trait, psychoticism, would have a similar explanation. However, the causal properties of this state are not well defined. Eysenck has suggested that psychoticism is related to testosterone levels and is an inverse function of the serotonergic system, but he later revised this, linking it instead to the dopaminergic system.

List of personality traits
After examining thousands of personality measures and numerous personality trait frameworks, researchers have created "super-frameworks" that aim to encapsulate all personality traits into a single model (e.g., Pan-Hierarchical Five Factor Model). These models also sometimes identify measures that can be used to measure traits/constructs in the models.

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

title: Trait theory


text:
User:Roozbeh

This is Roozbeh Pournader originally of Tehran, Iran but now living and working in San Francisco Bay Area.

Life and work
I used to live in Tehran, but moved to California in late 2000s.

In Iran, I was the founder and CTO of Sharif FarsiWeb, Inc. Now I'm working as an Internationalization Engineer at WhatsApp. I'm also a Technical Director at the Unicode Consortium.

Wikipedia
This is the same user as روزبه on the Persian Wikipedia, of which I was the founder.

For a partial list of the articles in the English Wikipedia started by me, see /Contributions.

For an interesting article about one of my contributions to Wikipedia, see Word War III, from the Washington Post.

title: User:Roozbeh


text:
Oracle bone

Oracle bones are pieces of ox scapula and turtle plastron which were used in pyromancy – a form of divination – during the Late Shang period (c. 1050) in ancient China. Scapulimancy is the specific term if ox scapulae were used for the divination, plastromancy if turtle plastrons were used. A recent count estimated that there were about 13,000 bones with a total of a little over 130,000 inscriptions in collections in China and some fourteen other countries.

Diviners would submit questions to deities regarding weather, crop planting, the fortunes of members of the royal family, military endeavors, and similar topics. These questions were carved onto the bone or shell in oracle bone script using a sharp tool. Intense heat was then applied with a metal rod until the bone or shell cracked due to thermal expansion. The diviner would then interpret the pattern of cracks and write the prognostication upon the piece as well. Pyromancy with bones continued in China into the Zhou dynasty, but the questions and prognostications were increasingly written with brushes and cinnabar ink, which degraded over time.

The oracle bones bear the earliest known significant corpus of ancient Chinese writing, using an early form of Chinese characters. The inscriptions contain around 5,000 different characters and a lot of them still being used today, though the total is uncertain because some may be different versions of the same character. Specialists have agreed on the form, meanings, and sound of a little more than a quarter of them, roughly 1,200 with certainty, but several hundred more under discussion. These known characters comprise much of the core vocabulary of modern Chinese. They provide important information on the late Shang period, and scholars have reconstructed the Shang royal genealogy from the cycle of ancestral sacrifices they record. When they were discovered in the end of the nineteenth century and deciphered in the early twentieth century, these records confirmed the existence of the Shang, which had been subject to scrutiny at the time by the Doubting Antiquity School.

Oraculology is the discipline for the study of oracle bones and the oracle bone script.

Discovery
Shang-era oracle bones are thought to have been unearthed periodically by local farmers since as early as the Sui and Tang dynasties, and perhaps starting as early as the Han dynasty, but local inhabitants did not realize what the bones were and generally reburied them. During the 19th century, villagers in the area who were digging in the fields discovered a number of bones, and used them as dragon bones, in reference to the traditional Chinese medicine practice of grinding up Pleistocene fossils into tonics or poultices. The turtle shell fragments were prescribed for malaria, while the other animal bones were used in powdered form to treat knife wounds.

In 1899, an antiques dealer from Shandong who was searching for Chinese bronzes in the area acquired a number of oracle bones from locals, several of which he sold to Wang Yirong, the chancellor of the Imperial Academy in Beijing. Wang was a knowledgeable collector of Chinese bronzes, and is believed to be the first person in modern times to recognize the oracle bones' markings as ancient Chinese writing similar to that on Zhou dynasty bronzes. A legendary tale relates that Wang was sick with malaria, and his scholar friend Liu E was visiting him and helped examine his medicine. They discovered, before it was ground into powder, that it bore strange glyphs, which they, having studied the ancient bronze inscriptions, recognized as ancient writing. Xu Yahui states that, "[n]o one can know how many oracle bones, prior to 1899, were ground up by traditional Chinese pharmacies and disappeared into people's stomachs."

It is not known how Wang and Liu actually came across these specimens, but Wang is credited with being the first to recognize their significance. Wang killed himself in 1900 in connection with his involvement in the Boxer Rebellion, and his son later sold the bones to friend Liu E, who published the first book of rubbings of the oracle bone inscriptions in 1903. News of the discovery of the oracle bones spread quickly throughout China and among foreign collectors and scholars, and the market for oracle bones exploded, though many collectors sought to keep the location of the bones' source a secret. Although scholars tried to find their source, antique dealers falsely claimed that the bones came from Tangyin in Henan. In 1908, scholar Luo Zhenyu discovered the source of the bones near Anyang and realized that the area was the site of the last Shang dynasty capital.

Decades of uncontrolled digs followed to fuel the antiques trade, and many of these pieces eventually entered collections in Europe, the United States, Canada, and Japan. The first Western collector was the American missionary Frank H. Chalfant (1862–1914). Chalfant also first coined the term "oracle bone" in his 1906 book Early Chinese Writing, which was then calqued into Chinese as 甲骨 in the 1930s.

Only a small number of dealers and collectors knew the location of the source of the oracle bones until they were found by Canadian missionary James Mellon Menzies, the first person to scientifically excavate, study, and decipher them. He was the first to conclude that the bones were records of divination from the Shang dynasty, and was the first to come up with a method of dating them (in order to avoid being fooled by fakes). In 1917 he published the first scientific study of the bones, including 2,369 drawings and inscriptions and thousands of ink rubbings. Through the donation of local people and his own archaeological excavations, he acquired the largest private collection in the world, over 35,000 pieces. He insisted that his collection remain in China, though some were sent to Canada by colleagues who were worried that they would be either destroyed or stolen during the Japanese invasion of China in 1937. The Chinese still acknowledge the pioneering contribution of Menzies as "the foremost western scholar of Yin-Shang culture and oracle bone inscriptions". His former residence in Anyang was declared a "Protected Treasure" in 2004, and the James Mellon Menzies Memorial Museum for Oracle Bone Studies was established.

Official excavations
By the time of the establishment of the Institute of History and Philology headed by Fu Sinian at the Academia Sinica in 1928, the source of the oracle bones had been traced back to modern Xiaotun village at Anyang in Henan. Official archaeological excavations led by Li Ji, the father of Chinese archaeology, between 1928 and 1937 discovered 20,000 oracle bone pieces, which now form the bulk of the Academia Sinica's collection in Taiwan and constitute about 1/5 of the total discovered. When deciphered, the inscriptions on the oracle bones turned out to be the records of the divinations performed for or by the royal household. These, together with royal-sized tombs, proved beyond a doubt for the first time the existence of the Shang dynasty, which had recently been doubted, and the location of its last capital, Yin. Today, Xiaotun at Anyang is thus also known as the Ruins of Yin, or Yinxu.

Publication
Oracle bone inscriptions were published as they were discovered, in fascicles. Subsequently, many collections of inscriptions were also published. The following are the main collections.

 * (1954)
 * (1951)
 * (1954)
 * (1951)
 * (1954)
 * (1951)
 * (1954)
 * (1951)
 * (1954)
 * (1951)
 * (1954)
 * (1951)
 * (1954)
 * (1951)
 * (1954)
 * (1951)
 * (1954)
 * (1951)
 * (1951)
 * (1951)

Observing that the citation of these different works was becoming unwieldy, an effort was made to comprehensively publish all bones hitherto discovered. The result, the Jiaguwen Heji (1978–1982) edited by Hu Houxuan and Guo Moruo, with its supplement (1999) edited by Peng Bangjiong, is the most comprehensive catalogue of oracle bone fragments. The 20 volumes contain reproductions of over 55,000 fragments. A separate work published in 1999 contains transcriptions of the inscriptions into standard characters.

Dating
The vast majority of the inscribed oracle bones were found at the Yinxu site in modern Anyang, and date to the reigns of the last nine Shang kings. The diviners named on the bones have been assigned to five periods by Dong Zuobin: The kings were involved in divination in all periods, but in later periods most divinations were done personally by the king. The extant inscriptions are not evenly distributed across these periods, with 55% coming from period I and 31% from periods III and IV. A few oracle bones date to the beginning of the subsequent Zhou dynasty.

The earliest oracle bones (corresponding to the reigns of Wu Ding and Zu Geng) record dates using only the 60-day cycle of stems and branches, though sometimes the month was also given. Attempts to determine an absolute chronology focus on a number of lunar eclipses recorded in inscriptions by the Bīn group, who worked during the reign of Wu Ding, possibly extending into the reign of Zu Geng. Assuming that the 60-day cycle continued uninterrupted into the securely dated period, scholars have sought to match the recorded dates with calculated dates of eclipses. There is general agreement on four of these, spanning dates from 1198 to 1180 BCE. A fifth is assigned by some scholars to 1201 BCE. From this data, the Xia–Shang–Zhou Chronology Project, relying on the statement in the "Against Luxurious Ease" chapter of the Book of Documents that the reign of Wu Ding lasted 59 years, dated it from 1250 to 1192 BCE. David Keightley argued that the "Against Luxurious Ease" chapter should not be treated as a historical text, because was composed much later, presents reign lengths as moral judgements, and gives other reign lengths that are contradicted by oracle bone evidence. He dated the reign of Wu Ding as approximately from 1200 to 1181 BCE. Ken-ichi Takashima dates the earliest oracle bone inscriptions to 1230 BCE. 26 oracle bone divinations of Wu Ding's reign have been radiocarbon dated to 1254–1197 BCE (±10 years); the oldest measured sample among them has been determined to be 1254 – 1221 BCE with 80–90% probability of containing the true date.

Period V inscriptions often identify numbered ritual cycles, making it easier to estimate the reign lengths of the last two kings. The start of this period is dated 1100–1090 BCE by Keightley and 1101 BCE by the Xia–Shang–Zhou project. Most scholars now agree that the Zhou conquest of the Shang took place close to 1046 or 1045 BCE, over a century later than the traditional date.

Shang divination
Since divination was by heat or fire and most often on plastrons or scapulae, the terms pyromancy, plastromancy and scapulimancy are often used for this process.

Materials
The oracle bones are mostly turtle plastrons, probably female) and ox scapulae, although some are the carapace of tortoises, and a few are ox rib bones, scapulae of sheep, boars, horses, and deer, and some other animal bones. The skulls of deer, oxen, and humans have also been found with inscriptions on them, although these are very rare and appear to have been inscribed for record keeping or practice rather than for actual divination; in one case, inscribed deer antlers were reported, but Keightley (1978) reports that they are fake. Interestingly, tortoises are not native to the areas oracle bones were discovered and thus it is theorized they were presented to the region as tribute. Neolithic diviners in China had long been heating the bones of deer, sheep, pigs, and cattle for similar purposes; evidence for this in Liaoning has been found dating to the late fourth millennium BCE. However, over time, the use of ox bones increased, and use of tortoise shells does not appear until early Shang culture. The earliest tortoise shells found that had been prepared for divinatory use (i.e., with chiseled pits) date to the earliest Shang stratum at Erligang (modern Zhengzhou). By the end of the Erligang, the plastrons were numerous, and at Anyang, scapulae and plastrons were used in roughly equal numbers. Due to the use of these shells in addition to bones, early references to the oracle bone script often used the term "shell and bone script", but since tortoise shells are actually a bony material, the more concise term "oracle bones" is applied to them as well.

The bones or shells were first sourced and then prepared for use. Their sourcing is significant because some of them (especially many of the shells) are believed to have been presented as tribute to the Shang, which is valuable information about diplomatic relations of the time. We know this because notations were often made on them recording their provenance (e.g., tribute of how many shells from where and on what date). For example, one notation records that " sent 250 (tortoise shells)", identifying this as, perhaps, a statelet within the Shang sphere of influence. These notations were generally made on the back of the shell's bridge (called bridge notations), the lower carapace, or the xiphiplastron (tail edge). Some shells may have been from locally raised tortoises, however. Scapula notations were near the socket or a lower edge. Some of these notations were not carved after being written with a brush, proving (along with other evidence) the use of the writing brush in Shang times. Scapulae are assumed to have generally come from the Shang's own livestock, perhaps those used in ritual sacrifice, although there are records of cattle sent as tribute as well, including some recorded via marginal notations.

Preparation
The bones or shells were cleaned of meat, and then prepared by sawing, scraping, smoothing, and even polishing, to create convenient, flat surfaces. The predominance of scapulae, and later of plastrons, is also thought to be related to their convenience as large, flat surfaces that needed minimal preparation. There is also speculation that only female tortoise shells were used, as these are significantly less concave. Pits or hollows were then drilled or chiseled partway through the bone or shell in an orderly series. At least one such drill has been unearthed at Erligang, exactly matching the pits in size and shape. The shape of these pits evolved over time, and is an important indicator for dating the oracle bones within various sub-periods in the Shang dynasty. The shape and depth also helped determine the nature of the crack that would appear. The number of pits per bone or shell varied widely.

Cracking and interpretation
Divinations were typically carried out for the Shang kings in the presence of a diviner. A very few oracle bones were used in divination by other members of the royal family or nobles close to the king. By the latest periods, the Shang kings took over the role of diviner personally.

During a divination session, the shell or bone was anointed with blood, and in an inscription section called the "preface", the date was recorded using the Heavenly Stems and Earthly Branches, and the diviner name was noted. Next, the topic of divination (called the "charge") was posed, such as whether a particular ancestor was causing a king's toothache. The divination charges were often directed at ancestors, whom the ancient Chinese revered and worshiped, as well as natural powers and, the highest god in the Shang society. A wide variety of topics were asked, essentially anything of concern to the royal house of Shang, from illness, birth and death, to weather, warfare, agriculture, tribute and so on. One of the most common topics was whether performing rituals in a certain manner would be satisfactory.

An intense heat source was then inserted in a pit until it cracked. Due to the shape of the pit, the front side of the bone cracked in a rough shape. The character ( or ; Old Chinese: ; 'to divine') may be a pictogram of such a crack; the reading of the character may also be an onomatopoeia for the cracking. A number of cracks were typically made in one session, sometimes on more than one bone, and these were typically numbered. The diviner in charge of the ceremony read the cracks to learn the answer to the divination. How exactly the cracks were interpreted is not known. The topic of divination was raised multiple times, and often in different ways, such as in the negative, or by changing the date being divined about. One oracle bone might be used for one session or for many, and one session could be recorded on a number of bones. The divined answer was sometimes then marked either "auspicious" or "inauspicious", and the king occasionally added a "prognostication", his reading on the nature of the omen. On very rare occasions, the actual outcome was later added to the bone in what is known as a "verification". A complete record of all the above elements is rare; most bones contain just the date, diviner and topic of divination, and many remained uninscribed after the divination.

The uninscribed divination is thought to have been brush-written with ink or cinnabar on the oracle bones or accompanying documents, as a few of the oracle bones found still bear their brush-written divinations without carving, while some have been found partially carved. After use, shells and bones used ritually were buried in separate pits (some for shells only; others for scapulae only), in groups of up to hundreds or even thousands (one pit unearthed in 1936 contained over 17,000 pieces along with a human skeleton).

Changes in the nature of divination
The targets and purposes of divination changed over time. During the reign of Wu Ding, diviners were likely to ask the powers or ancestors about things like the weather, success in battle, or building settlements. Offerings were promised if they would help with earthly affairs.

Crack-making on jiazi (day 1) Zheng divined "In praying for harvest to the sun, (we) will cleave ten dappled cows, and pledge one hundred dappled cows."

Keightley explains that this divination is unique in being addressed to the sun, but typical in that 10 cattle are being offered, with 100 more to follow if the harvest is good. Later divinations were more likely to be perfunctory, optimistic, made by the king himself, addressed to his ancestors, on a regular cycle, and unlikely to ask the ancestors to do anything. Keightley suggests that this reflects a change in ideas about what the powers and ancestors could do, and the extent to which the living could influence them.

Evidence of pre-Anyang pyromancy
While the use of bones in divination has been practiced almost globally, such divination involving fire or heat has generally been found only in Asia and the Asian-derived North American cultures. The use of heat to crack scapulae (pyro-scapulimancy) originated in ancient China, the earliest evidence of which extends back to the 4th millennium BCE, with archaeological finds from Liaoning, but these were not inscribed. In neolithic China at a variety of sites, the scapulae of cattle, sheep, pigs, and deer used in pyromancy have been found, and the practice appears to have become quite common by the end of the third millennium BCE. Scapulae were unearthed along with smaller numbers of pitless plastrons in the Nánguānwài stage at Zhengzhou; scapulae as well as smaller numbers of plastrons with chiseled pits were also discovered in the lower and upper Erligang stages.

Significant use of tortoise plastrons does not appear until the Shang culture sites. Ox scapulae and plastrons, both prepared for divination, were found at the Shang culture sites of Táixīcūn in Hebei and Qiūwān  in Jiangsu. One or more pitted scapulae were found at Lùsìcūn in Henan, while unpitted scapulae have been found at Erlitou in Henan, Cixian  in Hebei, Níngchéng  in Liaoning, and Qijia  in Gansu. Plastrons do not become more numerous than scapulae until the Rénmín Park phase.

Other sites
Four inscribed bones have been found at Zhengzhou: three with numbers 310, 311, and 312 in the Hebu corpus, and one that has a single character, which also appears in late Shang inscriptions. HB 310, which contained two brief divinations, has been lost, but is recorded in a rubbing and two photographs. HB 311 and 312 each contain a short sentence that is similar to the late Shang script. HB 312 was found in an upper layer of the Erligang culture. The others were found accidentally in river management earthworks, and so lack archaeological context. Pei Mingxiang argued that they predated the Anyang site. Takashima, referring to character forms and syntax, argues that they were contemporaneous with the reign of Wu Ding.

A few inscribed oracle bones have also been unearthed in the Zhōuyuán, the original political center of the Zhou in Shaanxi and in Daxinzhuang, Jinan, Shandong. Some bones from the Zhouyuan are believed to be contemporaneous with the reign of Di Xin, the last Shang king.

After the Shang
After the founding of Zhou, the Shang practices of bronze casting, pyromancy, and writing continued. Oracle bones that were found in the 1970s have been dated to the Zhou dynasty, with some of them dating to the Spring and Autumn period. However, very few of those were inscribed. It is thought that other methods of divination supplanted pyromancy, such as numerological divination using milfoil (yarrow) in connection with the hexagrams of the I Ching, leading to the decline in inscribed oracle bones. However, evidence for the continued use of plastromancy exists for the Eastern Zhou, Han, Tang, and Qing dynasty periods, and Keightley mentions its use in Taiwan as late as 1972.

title: Oracle bone


text:
Talk:Rudy Rucker

Tetration
There is no mention of "tetration" in this page, even though someone said somewhere else at Wikipedia that he uses the word "tetration" and there is no tetration page at Wikipedia.

Someone put one up recently;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetration

Meltingpot (talk) 12:39, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Novels linkage
I don't see the point of linking all the novels since by convention, most novels do not get Wikipedia articles. RedWolf 07:21, Sep 11, 2004 (UTC)
 * I agree, I removed most of the links in my edit. I think some may need to be added in again in the future, maybe Saucer Wisdom. A large part of the problem is that beyond the Ware Tetralogy, there's no agreement what his most signifigant works are. (Setting aside some fannishness, we may have to recognize that perhaps the Ware Teralogy is his only signifigant work).Whitejay251 06:17, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Ware Tetrology continuity
I was somewhat surprised to find no mention of the fact that Rucker seems to have undergone a religious conversion between the third and fourth "ware" book, and that the fourth book doesn't fit together very well with the other three as a result ... 24.22.58.51 11:36, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree that Realware feels more disjointed when compared to the first three novels. However, I don't believe he went through a "religious conversion" per se (unless you have a source which says he did, ie an interview). He did quit drinking and doing drugs between the third and fourth novel. Since drug use is such a big part of the ware tetralogy, the change in his attitude towards drugs is likely the source of that disjointed feel. If you're referring to the greater reliance on theistic themes in Realware as evidence of a religious conversion, I'd refer you to his non-Ware novels. Rucker is an author whose ouevre is reliant on a search for transcendance from consensual reality (see Transrealism). In Realware he imported some themes he had explored in previous novels but not the previous Ware novels.

 * This discussion belongs more at the Ware Tetralogy article in any case. I'll work it in there. There should be mention of his substance dependence in this article, but I'm not sure how I want to work that in exactly. Whitejay251 15:48, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Based on essays in Seek!, I'd say that Rucker did not so much have a religious conversion as a reevaluation of his previous religious conversion--deciding that his quest for mystic union with the universe (to put it crudely) ought to involve being nice to other people, and that meant not being a drunk. Which is good for him, but not necessarily so good for his fiction--Realware definitely has a preachy feel to it.

Insofar as his significant novels are concerned, I think White Light would have to be included--I believe the edition I read was published as part of a series of "significant novels in science fiction" or some such.

What I'm surprised about is that there's no discussion of his mathematical work here, which underlies a lot of his science fiction. My understanding is that it's considered significant. I don't really feel competent to write about it here, though; hopefully someone who knows the field will take a crack at it. Nareek 04:39, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Scientific background for sci-fi authors
A scientific background for popular sci-fi authors while certainly not predominate, is not unusual. The most obvious example is Isaac Asimov (biochemistry), but there are many others such as Fred Hoyle (astronomy), Carl Sagan (astronomy), Arthur C. Clarke (math & physics), Larry Niven (mathematics), Jerry Pournelle (statistics), and Michael Crichton (medicine). We could do a Wiki-list as an exercise. --Blainster 20:49, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

why is his photo a negative?
Very distracting - it looks like a mistake. If it's done on purpose for artistic or whatever reasons, the cutline should say so. - DavidWBrooks 15:35, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

You can use a picture taken by my daughter Georgia Rucker if you like, we'll license it under GFDL. The picture is at [] Rudyrucker 05:25, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 04:04, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Gödel
Because Rudy Rucker is a fiction writer, I wonder if his interview with Gödel was fabricated. Did he really meet and talk to the noted recluse?Lestrade (talk) 18:40, 11 February 2008 (UTC)Lestrade
 * Rudy is pretty good about differentiating between what he's making up and what's real. --Pleasantville (talk) 00:19, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I want to believe you, but I can't understand how you could be so certain. Only Rudy Rucker, in his own mind, would know the truth. Lestrade (talk) 13:15, 13 February 2008 (UTC)Lestrade
 * He's a friend and I edited one of his books as a freelancer for the publisher. How does this relate to the existing article? Pleasantville (talk) 15:11, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The existing article describes some of Rucker's work as Transrealism which is science fiction based on the author's own life and immediate perceptions, mixed with fantastic elements. When this statement is combined with the fact that Gödel was extremely private and disliked publicity, as well as being averse to meeting people, then it naturally follows that there was a possibility that the interview may have been fictitious. No harm intended. Just asking a question.Lestrade (talk) 00:22, 14 February 2008 (UTC)Lestrade

Yes, Lestrade, I did meet Kurt Gödel in his Princeton office in 1972, as described in my book INFINITY AND THE MIND. Though if you don't believe my book, why would you believe my comment! Rudyrucker (talk) 22:31, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Contradiction?
Is saucer wisdom fiction, or non-fiction? the article seems to contain opposing points of view. having skimmed through the book (very briefly) it doens't seem obvious to me. G30ffr3y (talk) 21:34, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

SAUCER WISDOM in a transreal novel, that is, it is fiction that is closely linked to autobiographical events of the author's life. In this particular work, I dialled up the level of transrealism very high, which seemed fitting for a book celebrating the coming of the New Millennium (year 2000). You can find out more about the genesis of this book in the writing notes, which can be accessed via the Saucer Wisdom book's website. Rudyrucker (talk) 22:37, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Cyberpunk
Which sources say he writes cyberpunk novels? The Voice of the Wild (talk) 08:24, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Try searching google. -- Quiddity (talk) 19:32, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Chaos software
The article should include a mention the James Gleick's CHAOS: the Software software that he cowrote for Autodesk, which is downloadable as shareware. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SimplyIrresistible (talk • contribs) 06:13, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Needs References
Whoah, I see a warning that this entry needs references!

(1) A Google Scholar search on "Rudy Rucker" returns academic citations of Rucker's works.

(2) A regular Google search for "Rudy Rucker review" yields general reviews. Rudyrucker (talk) 23:47, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

How to Revert Author Edits?
I see a warning that I edited this, my article, in the past. I'd like to undo these edits and clean up the record, but I'm not sure how. If I try and remove my old edits, I'm blocked from doing this, as the reversions would conflict with later edits by others. Any advice? Rudyrucker (talk) 23:49, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * If you pull up the weeds, you will pull up the wheat with them. It is impractical to remove your edits and your status as a connected editor will not change.  The solution I see is to remove the Notable Wikipedian template (now connected contributor template) from this talk page.  You inadvertently edited before knowing of Wikipedia policy against editing your own article.  Your edits in themselves have not been a problem and you do not seem to be the sort of self promoting unnotable jerk that the Wikipedia policy is meant to thwart.  However, the connected contributor template causes a categorization that draws some unwanted attention.  It seems that it would avoid wasting people's time to just remove the template.  This should wait until others have had a chance to agree on not on this point. I have also improved the formatting of your signature.  I hope you do not mind.  Fartherred (talk) 09:57, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * While we are at it, the WikiProject Computing template and WikiProject Computer science templates could be removed too. Rudy Rucker is a computer scientist who taught at universities, but that is insufficient to make him notable as a computer scientist.  His notability is only as a science fiction writer.  So, if there is no objection I will remove those templates. Fartherred (talk) 10:43, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * There has now been enough time for comment and no objections to removing the templates, so I will cut them and we may get some discussion then. Just to summarize my argument:  There is a connected editor who is causing no problems and no longer editing his own article.  There is no requirement to use the connected contributor template wherever possible.  Removing the template will save people the trouble of looking here for connected contributor problems. Fartherred (talk) 00:39, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Fartherred, for clearing this up. Rudyrucker (talk) 04:08, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Fartherred, I guess I would however maintain that by some lights I can be considered a notable computer scientist. I shipped three software products, CA Lab, Chaos, and Artificial Life Lab. I was one of earlier professors to teach computer games programmign (this was at SJSU), and I authored an Addison Wesley book on this, "Software Engineering and Computer Games." And finally, I published a tome about the Philosophy of Computer Science (a budding field), this was THE LIFEBOX, THE SEASHELL, AND THE SOUL, now under the imprint of Basic Books. So maybe I am mildly notable. In any case, time will tell.Rudyrucker (talk) 04:12, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Your contributions as a computer scientist might very well be more valuable than your contributions as a science fiction writer. I have personally read nothing that you wrote other than what you have posted on Wikipedia.  I judge notability by reviews of your work.  As I understand it, notability for a scientists is established by their being mentioned in commentaries by others about scientific work.  There might be some disagreement about this standard on Wikipedia, but Wikipedia cannot be a directory of all computer scientists.  Perhaps you are notable and I missed published discussion of your work.  I have not put much time into it.  The Google Scholar search results that you provided seem to refer to many of your published works but not commentary about them.  Other published works citing yours may establish notability.  I will need to check what the standards are myself.  Thanks for your help so far in pointing out information.  I will try to serve Wikipedia's interest, but am somewhat inexperienced.  Fartherred (talk) 19:02, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * For an example of discussion about whether a computer scientist qualifies as notable according to Wikipedia see this article for deletion discussion. Fartherred (talk) 16:46, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Removal of no citations templates
The no citations template is not needed on the career section since there are now citations. The no citations template is not needed on the works section because each work is its own citation. Fartherred (talk) 17:37, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Removal of notability template
There are two online articles about Rudy Rucker listed as references in Rudy Rucker. For a third there is ROY CHRISTOPHER's article. These references were the result of casual searches. The template indicates that Rudy Rucker is likely to be deleted. That won't happen. It is time for the notability template to disappear. Fartherred (talk) 08:34, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Testimonial
So I was surprised to see a "testimonial" section of this supposed encyclopedia article on Rudy Rucker. But now that I see he's influenced the editing of this article (complete with a friend that edits the article too), I'm no longer surprised. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.164.215.34 (talk) 11:48, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The article on author Robert A. Heinlein states that he is identified as "one of the three masters of science fiction...", which is a comment on his reputation in the field. The statement that a prominent author considered Rudy Rucker prominent in science fiction seems equally appropriate.  I placed the testimonial section in the article.  I am not fortunate enough to number Rudy Rucker among my friends or even acquaintances.  Which friend of Rudy Rucker do you claim edits this article?  How does that explain the presence of a testimonial section?  If there is some way that this article can be improved, we should be able to determine that by plain statements.  Fartherred (talk) 03:32, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Church of the SubGenius Membership?
Recently. User:Pburka removed the following pages from Category:American SubGenii.

Rudy Rucker (Mentioned here, here, here and here)

Penn Jillette (Mentioned here and here and here)

Nancy A. Collins (Mentioned here, here and here)

John Shirley (Mentioned here and here)

Bruce Campbell (Mentioned here and here)

Del Close (Mentioned here)

Paul Reubens AKA Pee Wee Herman (Mentioned here and here)

Lon Milo DuQuette (Mentioned here)

These removals were perfectly reasonable, because the articles do not mention membership in the COSG, nor are most of the links I list above reliable sources. Because of this, I am putting out a call for citations to reliable sources that establish Church of the SubGenius membership for these and other celebrities. I suspect that a fair count will put the number considerably higher than the number of celebrity Scientologists. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:49, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

 * The two parts of WP:BLPCAT that seem most relevant are "the case for each category must be made clear by the article text and its reliable sources" -- meaning we need to add something about Church of the SubGenius Membership in the text and we need a citation supporting it, and "Categories regarding religious beliefs ... should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief" -- meaning that we need a citation where Rudy Rucker mimself says he is a member or strong supporter. As I said before, I think that Pburka removing the category was entirely correct; I just want to improve the article in such a way that the category can be re-added. So, does anyone know of such a citation?  --Guy Macon (talk) 04:27, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The was added by Modemac on the 29th of December 2005.  Modemac did not provide a source of any kind.  It seems likely that you will not find a reliable source for Rudy Rucker self identifying as a SubGenius.  - Fartherred (talk) 21:09, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

 * How about this?

 * "My artist friend Paul Mavrides was there, he recalled that we’d met thanks to our common “cult leader” Ivan Stang of the Church of the SubGenius who put us in contact when I moved out West twenty years ago." --Rudy Rucker, http://www.rudyrucker.com/blog/2006/03/20/birthday-party-jon-pearce-reminisces/

 * Or this?

 * "We went with fellow SFictionist and SubGenius John Shirley" --Rudy Rucker, http://www.rudyrucker.com/blog/2006/02/13/ipostsingulari-proposal-dick-n-dubya-show/

 * Or this?

 * "The electrican has a nice piece of old-timey clip-art on his sign; these kinds of images always remind me of the hallowed Pamphlet #1 of the Church of the SubGenius which is *wow* viewable in its entirety online, just keep pressing the little forward arrow at the bottom of the page that link takes you to. Or order the dang thing in paper . I'll never forget the impact this pamphlet had on me when I read it in, like, 1983. The world wasn't as noisy back then." --Rudy Rucker, http://www.rudyrucker.com/blog/2005/06/17/safety-beeper-noise-pollution/ --Guy Macon (talk) 08:13, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Well that seems convincing. I would not object to a well worded referenced change to the text.  - Fartherred (talk) 15:44, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Turing & Burroughs: A Beatnik SF Novel
As I added this to my to-read list, this bit caught my eye: the new novel features (inter alia) "man-sized telepathic orgy-loving slugs." Can't wait! Review: http://www.locusmag.com/Reviews/2012/10/paul-di-filippo-reviews-rudy-rucker/

Happy reading-- Pete Tillman (talk) 22:41, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Update Suggestions Made by Rudy Rucker
Some notes for material that could be worked into the article. Updated November 7, 2021.

External Link: The Rudy Rucker entry in the Encyclopedia of Science Fiction. http://www.sf-encyclopedia.com/entry/rucker_rudy

External Link: Rucker's paintings page. http://wwww.rudyrucker.com/paintings

Personal Life: After the sentence "Thinking he may not be around much longer, this prompted him to write Nested Scrolls, his autobiography." Add the sentence "Fully recovered, he went on to publish six more novels as well."

Career: Rucker runs his own press, Transreal Books, sometimes publishing or republishing his own books. He also published William J. Craddock's early psychedelic novel BE NOT CONTENT. http://www.transrealbooks.com

Career: Rucker has made over 200 paintings since 1999, many of them relating to SF themes or to his novels. He has a website for his paintings and he's had shows at Borderlands Books and Life Bait in San Francisco. The paintings appear in his annually updated art book, Better Worlds.

Bad Link: The link in footnote [131] is bad, and the note referencing this link from the Mathenauts listing should be dropped.

Rudyrucker (talk) 01:56, 25 January 2013 (UTC) Rudyrucker (talk) 21:38, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Concerning a flag asking for references to the remark that R's book Infinity and the Mind has been cited in academic literature: See the collection of essays, Infinity: New Research Frontiers, edited by Michael Heller and W. Hugh Woodin, Cambridge U. Press, 2011. Rudyrucker (talk) 21:34, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Is Rudy Rucker really a philosopher?
Is Rudy Rucker a philosopher in a sense that justifies referring to him as such in the first line of this article? Has he ever published a peer-reviewed paper or book in philosophy? Has he ever been cited by academic or professional philosophers? If you drop his name in the next meeting of any professional convention or meeting of philosophers, would one in one hundred there recognize his name? I suggest removing the word "philosopher" from that sentence. 2001:470:DF45:FE77:230:48FF:FE70:B86C (talk) 12:14, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

title: Talk:Rudy Rucker


text:
Sherman Brothers

The Sherman Brothers were an American songwriting duo that specialized in musical films, made up of brothers Robert B. Sherman (December 19, 1925 – March 6, 2012) and Richard M. Sherman (June 12, 1928 – May 25, 2024). Together they received various accolades including two Academy Awards and three Grammy Awards. They received nominations for a Laurence Olivier Award, a BAFTA Award, and five Golden Globe Awards. In 1976, they received a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame, and the National Medal of the Arts in 2008.

The Sherman Brothers wrote more motion-picture musical song scores than any other songwriting team in film history. Their work includes the live-action films The Parent Trap (1961), Mary Poppins (1964), Chitty Chitty Bang Bang (1968), and Bedknobs and Broomsticks (1971) and the animated films The Sword in the Stone (1963), The Jungle Book (1967, except “The Bare Necessities,” which Terry Gilkyson wrote), Charlotte's Web (1973), The Aristocats (1970), and The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh (1977). Among their most famous works are the theme park songs There's A Great Big Beautiful Tomorrow and It's A Small World (After All). According to Time magazine, the latter song is the most performed song of all time.

The Shermans earned nine Academy Award nominations (with two wins), two Grammy Awards, four Grammy Award nominations, and 23 gold- and platinum-certified albums.

1950s
Sons of Russian-Jewish immigrants, Robert and Richard Sherman began writing songs together in 1951 on a challenge from their father, Tin Pan Alley songwriter Al Sherman. The brothers wrote together and with different songwriting partners throughout the rest of the decade.

In 1958, Robert founded the music publishing company Music World Corporation, which later enjoyed a landmark relationship with Disney's BMI-affiliated publishing arm, Wonderland Music Company. That same year, the Sherman Brothers had their first top-ten hit with "Tall Paul", sung by Mouseketeer Judy Harriet on the Surf Records label and then covered by Mouseketeer Annette Funicello. They wrote the international hit "You're Sixteen," first recorded in 1960 by rockabilly singer Johnny Burnette, and a chart success again in 1973 for Ringo Starr. They also wrote the title song for Doris Day's album Bright and Shiny, recorded in 1960 and released a year later.

1960s
The success of these songs gained the attention of Walt Disney, who eventually hired the Sherman Brothers as staff songwriters for Walt Disney Studios. The first song they wrote on personal assignment by Walt Disney was "Strummin' Song" in 1961. It was used in the Annette Funicello made-for-television movie called The Horsemasters. The first song that the Sherman Brothers contributed to a Disney movie was "Medfield Fight Song" from the film The Absent-Minded Professor (1961).

While at Disney, the Sherman Brothers wrote more motion-picture musical scores than any other songwriters in the history of film. They also wrote what is perhaps their best-known song, "It's a Small World (After All)", for the 1964 New York World's Fair. Since then, some have claimed that this has become the most translated and performed song on Earth, although this is largely due to the fact that it is played continuously at Disney's theme park "It's a Small World" attractions of the same name.

In 1965, the Sherman Brothers won two Academy Awards for Mary Poppins, which includes the songs "Feed The Birds," "Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious," and the Oscar-winning "Chim Chim Cher-ee." Starting with this movie, and continuing through several subsequent Disney movies, the Sherman Brothers collaborated with noted arranger-conductor Irwin Kostal.

Robert and Richard Sherman worked directly for Walt Disney, completing the scores for the live-action musical films The Happiest Millionaire and The One and Only, Genuine, Original Family Band until Disney's death in 1966.

Their first non-Disney assignment came with Albert R. Broccoli's motion picture production Chitty Chitty Bang Bang for United Artists in 1968, which garnered the brothers their third Academy Award nomination for Best Original Song for its particularly memorable titular song.

1970s
In 1970, the Shermans returned to Disney for a brief stint where they completed work on The Aristocats and Bedknobs and Broomsticks. The latter film garnered the brothers their fourth and fifth Oscar nominations. 1972 saw the release of Snoopy Come Home, for which the brothers received a Grammy nomination.

In 1973, the Sherman Brothers also made history by becoming the only Americans ever to win First Prize at the Moscow Film Festival for Tom Sawyer, for which they also authored the screenplay.

In 1976, The Slipper and the Rose was picked to be the Royal Command Performance of the year. The performance was attended by Queen Elizabeth, the Queen Mother. A modern musical adaptation of the classic Cinderella story, Slipper also featured songs, score, and screenplay by the Sherman Brothers. Two further Academy Award nominations were garnered by the brothers for the film. That same year the Sherman Brothers received a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame directly across from Grauman's Chinese Theatre.

The Sherman Brothers' numerous other Disney and non-Disney top box office film credits include The Jungle Book (1967), The Aristocats (1970), The Parent Trap (1961), The Parent Trap (1998), Charlotte's Web (1973), Huckleberry Finn (1974), The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh (1977), Snoopy Come Home (1972), Bedknobs and Broomsticks (1971), and Little Nemo: Adventures in Slumberland (1989). Outside the motion-picture realm, their Tony Award-nominated hit Over Here! (1974) was the biggest-grossing original Broadway musical of that year and broke box-office records for its Off-Broadway revival (2019).

2000s
In 2000, the Sherman Brothers wrote the song score for the Disney film The Tigger Movie. This film marked the brothers' first major motion picture for the Disney company in over 28 years, and was also their final film credit as duo because of Robert's death in 2012.

In 2002, Chitty hit the London stage, receiving rave reviews. Chitty Chitty Bang Bang is currently the most successful stage show ever produced at the London Palladium, boasting the longest run in that century-old theater's history. On April 28, 2005, a second Chitty company premiered on Broadway (New York City) at the Foxwoods Theatre. The Sherman Brothers wrote an additional six songs specifically for the new stage productions.

In 2003, four Sherman Brothers' musicals ranked in the Top 10 Favorite Children's Films of All Time in a British nationwide poll reported by the BBC. Most notably, Chitty Chitty Bang Bang (1968) topped the list at #1. In later years, with Robert's move to London, the brothers wrote new songs for the stage musical presentation of Chitty Chitty Bang Bang. For their contributions to the motion picture industry, the Sherman brothers have a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame at 6918 Hollywood Blvd. and were inducted into the Songwriters Hall of Fame on June 9, 2005. On November 16, 2006, Mary Poppins premiered at the New Amsterdam Theatre on Broadway.

On November 17, 2008, the Sherman Brothers received the National Medal of Arts, which is the highest honor conferred on artists or patrons of the arts by the United States Government. The award was presented by United States President George W. Bush in an East Room ceremony at The White House.

On May 22, 2009, The Boys: The Sherman Brothers' Story, a critically acclaimed documentary film about the pair, was theatrically released. The film was directed and produced by their sons, Gregory V. Sherman and Jeff Sherman, and distributed by Walt Disney Pictures. In October 2009, Disney released a 59-track, two-CD compendium of their work for the studio spanning 42 years. The CD is titled The Sherman Brothers Songbook. On March 11, 2010, the Sherman Brothers were presented with a specialized window on Main Street, U.S.A., at Disneyland in Anaheim, California, in honor of their contribution to Disney theme parks. On May 17, 2010, the Sherman Brothers received the "Career Achievement Award" at The Theatre Museum's 2010 Awards Gala in New York City.

From 2002, Robert Sherman lived in London, England. He moved from Beverly Hills, while Richard Sherman remained in California. Robert Sherman died in London on March 6, 2012. Richard Sherman died in Los Angeles on May 25, 2024.

Influence and recognition

 * In 2000, the Sherman Brothers wrote the award-winning score to The Tigger Movie which achieved number-one status in both theatrical box office and video sales. They also composed a song for the movie called "Your Heart Will Lead You Home", co-written and performed by Kenny Loggins.
 * The Sherman Brothers' motion picture Chitty Chitty Bang Bang was adapted into a London West End Musical in 2002 and premiered at the London Palladium on April 16, 2002, featuring many new songs and a reworked score by both Sherman Brothers. It was nominated for a 2003 Laurence Olivier Theatre Award for Best New Musical. The Sherman Brothers each received the Musical Theatre Award from the Variety Club of Great Britain that year as well for Chitty, which finished a record breaking three-and-a-half-year run at the Palladium, becoming the longest running show in the theater's century long history. In 2004, the premiere of Mary Poppins arrived on the stage. In 2005, Poppins was nominated for nine Olivier Awards. In 2005, Chitty went to Broadway and was nominated for nine Tonys and also began its nationwide (UK) tour.
 * On June 9, 2005, both Shermans were inducted into the Songwriters Hall of Fame alongside Bill Withers, Steve Cropper, John Fogerty, Isaac Hayes, and David Porter.
 * On November 16, 2006, the Cameron Mackintosh/Disney production of Mary Poppins made its Broadway premiere at the New Amsterdam Theater featuring the Sherman Brothers' classic songs.
 * In 2007, during the 40th-anniversary DVD rerelease of The Jungle Book London press junket, the Sherman Brothers were witnessed by press working on a new song for Inkas (see below) in the same Brown's Hotel room where The Jungle Book was originally penned by British writer Rudyard Kipling over a hundred years earlier.
 * In February 2008, Chitty Chitty Bang Bang began a second UK tour. In 2008 and 2009, Poppins premiered in numerous cities throughout the world including Stockholm, Copenhagen, Budapest, Toronto, Shanghai, Sydney, Johannesburg, Amsterdam, Buenos Aires, São Paulo, and Helsinki. Full UK and US tours of Poppins also commenced in 2008, 2009 and 2010 respectively.
 * On May 21, 2011, the Sherman Brothers were each awarded honorary doctorate degrees in Fine Arts from their alma mater, Bard College. This was Robert's second honorary doctorate.  His first was granted by Lincoln College on May 12, 1990.  Robert's critically acclaimed autobiography, Moose: Chapters From My Life was published posthumously by AuthorHouse Publishers on November 27, 2013, in anticipation of the release of the Walt Disney Pictures film Saving Mr. Banks. Set in 1961 and based on the stories behind the original development meetings for Disney's film version of Mary Poppins, Saving Mr. Banks features actors B. J. Novak as Robert Sherman and Jason Schwartzman as Richard Sherman.
 * In 2014, the Sherman Brothers, alongside their father Al Sherman, were the subjects of a London musical concert titled A Spoonful of Sherman written, produced, and hosted by Robert's son, Robert J. Sherman. The concert received generally very positive reviews including four stars from The Times.  A CD produced by Nick Lloyd Webber was released by SimG Records in 2015.
 * In 2017 A Spoonful of Sherman was revived, playing at the venue, "Live At Zédel" in London.
 * On July 31, 2018, the Walt Disney Studios in Burbank, California renamed Soundstage A the Sherman Brothers Stage.
 * In 2018, the first A Spoonful of Sherman UK/Ireland Tour began with previews on February 14, 2018, at the EM Forester Theatre in Tonbridge, Kent. The tour played in 28 cities in England, Scotland, Wales and the Republic of Ireland. Cast members for the tour included Sophie-Louise Dann, Mark Read, Glen Facey, Jenna Innes and Ben Stock.

Film

 * The Absent-Minded Professor, 1961 - "Medfield Fight Song" only
 * The Parent Trap, 1961
 * A Symposium on Popular Songs, 1962 - animated short
 * Moon Pilot, 1962
 * Bon Voyage!, 1962
 * Big Red, 1962
 * The Legend of Lobo, 1962
 * In Search of the Castaways, 1962
 * Miracle of the White Stallions, 1963
 * Summer Magic, 1963
 * The Sword in the Stone, 1963
 * The Misadventures of Merlin Jones, 1964
 * Mary Poppins, 1964
 * Those Calloways, 1965
 * The Monkey's Uncle, 1965
 * That Darn Cat!, 1965
 * Winnie the Pooh and the Honey Tree, 1966 - animated short
 * Follow Me, Boys!, 1966
 * Monkeys, Go Home!, 1967
 * The Adventures of Bullwhip Griffin, 1967
 * The Gnome-Mobile, 1967
 * The Jungle Book, 1967 (all songs except "The Bare Necessities")
 * The Happiest Millionaire, 1967
 * The One and Only, Genuine, Original Family Band, 1968
 * Chitty Chitty Bang Bang, 1968
 * Winnie the Pooh and the Blustery Day, 1968 - animated short
 * The Aristocats, 1970
 * Bedknobs and Broomsticks, 1971
 * Snoopy Come Home, 1972
 * Charlotte's Web, 1973
 * Tom Sawyer, 1973
 * Huckleberry Finn, 1974
 * Winnie the Pooh and Tigger Too, 1974 - animated short
 * The Slipper and the Rose, 1976
 * The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh, 1977
 * The Magic of Lassie, 1978
 * Magic Journeys, 1982 - theme park attraction
 * Welcome to Pooh Corner, 1983 - television series
 * Winnie the Pooh and a Day for Eeyore, 1983 - animated short
 * Little Nemo: Adventures in Slumberland, 1992
 * The Mighty Kong, 1998
 * The Parent Trap, 1998
 * Seasons of Giving, 1999 - direct-to-video film
 * The Tigger Movie, 2000
 * Winnie the Pooh, 2011 – theme song and "The Wonderful Thing About Tiggers" rendition only
 * Saving Mr. Banks, 2013 – songs from the original 1964 Mary Poppins film
 * The Jungle Book, 2016
 * Christopher Robin, 2018
 * Mary Poppins Returns, 2018 – music references from the original 1964 film
 * Inkas the Ramferinkas, 2023 – (announced).

Television
Episodes from the Walt Disney anthology television series
 * Auld Acquaintance (Zorro special)
 * The Ballad of Hector the Stowaway Dog
 * The Big Swindle
 * A Boy Called Nuthin'
 * Bristle Face
 * Carnival Time
 * A Case of Murder
 * The Daily Press vs. City Hall
 * Escapade in Florence
 * Gallegher
 * Greta, the Misfit Greyhound
 * Holiday Time at Disneyland
 * The Horse Without a Head
 * The Horsemasters
 * Johnny Shiloh
 * Mediterranean Cruise
 * Mooncussers
 * The Postponed Wedding
 * A Rag, A Bone, A Box of Junk
 * Spy in the Sky
 * The Tenderfoot
 * The Young Loner

Film Screenplays

 * A Symposium on Popular Songs, 1962 (uncredited)
 * Mary Poppins, 1964 (treatment only)
 * Tom Sawyer, 1973 (screenplay)
 * Huckleberry Finn, 1974 (screenplay)
 * The Slipper and the Rose, 1976 (screenplay)
 * The Magic of Lassie, 1978 (screenplay) / (story)
 * Ferdinand the Bull, 1986 (*TV screenplay)

Theatre

 * Victory Canteen, 1971 (Ivar Theatre, L.A.)
 * Over Here!, 1974 (Broadway, NY)
 * Dawgs, 1983 (Variety Arts Center, L.A.)
 * Busker Alley, 1995 (U.S. Tour)
 * Chitty Chitty Bang Bang, 2002 (London)
 * Mary Poppins, 2004 (London)
 * On the Record 2004-5 (U.S. Tour) (several songs included)
 * Chitty Chitty Bang Bang, 2005 (Broadway, NY)
 * Chitty Chitty Bang Bang, 2005 (UK Tour)
 * Busker Alley, 2006 (Broadway, NY – *one night only)
 * Mary Poppins, 2006 (Broadway, NY)
 * Chitty Chitty Bang Bang, 2007 (Singapore)
 * Mary Poppins, 2008 (UK Tour)
 * Chitty Chitty Bang Bang, 2008 (Second UK Tour)
 * Mary Poppins, 2008 (Gothenburg)
 * Mary Poppins, 2009 (First US Tour)
 * Mary Poppins, 2009 (Copenhagen)
 * Mary Poppins, 2009 (Budapest)
 * Mary Poppins, 2009 (Shanghai)
 * Mary Poppins, 2009 (Australia)
 * Mary Poppins, 2009 (South Africa)
 * Mary Poppins, 2009 (Scheveningen)
 * Mary Poppins, 2009 (Helsinki)
 * Mary Poppins, 2012–13 (Second US Tour)
 * A Spoonful of Sherman, 2014 (London)
 * A Spoonful of Sherman, 2017 (London)
 * A Spoonful of Sherman, 2018 (UK/Ireland Tour)
 * A Spoonful of Sherman, 2019 (Singapore)
 * Over Here!, 2019 (Off-Broadway, NY – *one night only)
 * Mary Poppins, 2019– (London Revival)
 * Bedknobs And Broomsticks (musical), 2021– (UK tour)

Theme park songs

 * Adventure Thru Inner Space
 * "Miracles from Molecules"
 * America on Parade
 * "The Glorious Fourth"
 * CommuniCore
 * "The Astuter Computer Revue" (for the 1982 premiere of the pavilion at EPCOT Center)
 * Epcot Center Opening & Dedication
 * "The World Showcase March"
 * Pepsi Presents Walt Disney's "It's a Small World" – a Salute to UNICEF and the World's Children for the 1964 New York World's Fair
 * "It's a Small World (After All)" was then adapted for each Disney park's "It's a Small World" attraction installation.
 * Journey Into Imagination (and Journey Into Imagination With Figment)
 * "One Little Spark"
 * Magic Journeys
 * "Magic Journeys"
 * "Makin' Memories"
 * Meet the World in Tokyo Disneyland
 * "Meet the World"
 * "We Meet the World with Love"
 * Rocket Rods
 * "Magic Highways"
 * Walt Disney's Carousel of Progress
 * "The Best Time of Your Life"
 * "There's a Great Big Beautiful Tomorrow"
 * Walt Disney's Enchanted Tiki Room
 * "The Tiki, Tiki, Tiki Room"
 * Disneyland Forever
 * "Live the Magic"
 * "A Kiss Goodnight"

 Other

 * Three songs plus underscore for the NBC-TV animated musical Goldilocks produced in 1969 by DePatie-Freleng (of Pink Panther fame) starring Bing Crosby, his wife Kathryn Grant and two youngest children Mary Frances and Nathaniel.
 * "The Spectrum Song" – for Walt Disney's The Wonderful World of Color. Sung by Paul Frees as Ludwig Von Drake.
 * Three unfinished film scores for a musical adaptation of James Thurber's novel The 13 Clocks, another of Roman Holiday, and one for Jack Kinney titled Sir Puss in Boots.
 * Richard Sherman wrote the "theme park" song "Make Way For Tomorrow Today" for the movie Iron Man 2.

Academy Awards

 * 1964 Won Academy Award in the category of "Best Original Song" for "Chim Chim Cher-ee" from Mary Poppins
 * 1964 Won Academy Award in the category of "Best Substantially Original Score" for Mary Poppins
 * 1968 Nominated Academy Award in the category of "Best Original Song" for "Chitty Chitty Bang Bang" from Chitty Chitty Bang Bang
 * 1971 Nominated Academy Award in the category of "Best Original Song" for "The Age of Not Believing" from Bedknobs & Broomsticks
 * 1971 Nominated Academy Award in the category of "Best Scoring Adaptation and Original Song Score" for Bedknobs & Broomsticks
 * 1973 Nominated Academy Award in the category of "Best Scoring Original Song Score And/Or Adaptation" for Tom Sawyer
 * 1977 Nominated Academy Award in the category of "Best Original Song" for "The Slipper and the Rose Waltz" from The Slipper and the Rose
 * 1977 Nominated Academy Award in the category of "Best Scoring Original Song Score And/Or Adaptation" for The Slipper and the Rose
 * 1978 Nominated Academy Award in the category of "Best Original Song" for "When You're Loved" from The Magic of Lassie

Annie Awards

 * 2000 Nominated Annie in the category of "Outstanding Individual Achievement for Music in an Animated Feature Production" for the song "Round My Family Tree" from The Tigger Movie
 * 2003 "Winsor McCay Award" for lifetime achievement and contribution to animation

BAFTA Awards

 * 1977 Nominated "Anthony Asquith Award for Film Music" for The Slipper and the Rose

BMI

 * 1977 "Pioneer Award" awarded in Los Angeles, California.
 * 1991 "Lifetime Achievement Award" awarded at the Beverly Wilshire Hotel in Los Angeles, California.

Christopher Award

 * 1964 "Christopher Award" for "Best Original Song Score" for Mary Poppins
 * 1973 "Christopher Award" for "Best Original Song Score" for Tom Sawyer

Disney

 * 1985 "Mousecar" awarded at the Hollywood Bowl in Hollywood, California in front of 20 thousand people.
 * 1990 "Disney Legends" awarded at the Walt Disney Studios in Burbank, California.
 * 2010 Main Street, U.S. Window presented at Disneyland in Anaheim, California in honor of the Sherman Brothers' contribution to Disney theme parks.

Golden Globes

 * 1965 Nominated Golden Globe in the category of "Best Original Score" for Mary Poppins
 * 1969 Nominated Golden Globe in the category of "Best Original Score" for Chitty Chitty Bang Bang
 * 1969 Nominated Golden Globe in the category of "Best Original Song" for Chitty Chitty Bang Bang
 * 1974 Nominated Golden Globe in the category of "Best Original Score" for Tom Sawyer
 * 1977 Nominated Golden Globe in the category of "Best Original Score" for The Slipper and the Rose

Golden Videocassette Award

 * 1984 Best Selling Video Cassette (of all time) for Mary Poppins

Grammy Awards

 * 1965 Won Grammy in the category of "Best Original Score for a Motion Picture or Television Show" for Mary Poppins
 * 1965 Won Grammy in the category of "Best Recording for Children" for Mary Poppins
 * 1966 Nominated Grammy in the category of "Best Recording for Children" for Winnie the Pooh and the Honey Tree
 * 1968 Nominated Grammy in the category of "Best Recording for Children" for The Jungle Book
 * 1970 Nominated Grammy in the category of "Best Recording for Children" for Chitty Chitty Bang Bang
 * 1971 Nominated Grammy in the category of "Best Recording for Children" for The Aristocats
 * 1973 Nominated Grammy in the category of "Best Original Score for a Children's Show" for Snoopy Come Home
 * 1974 Nominated Grammy in the category of "Best Original Score for a Musical Show" for Over Here!
 * 1975 Won Grammy in the category of "Best Recording for Children" for Winnie the Pooh and Tigger Too

Laurel Awards

 * 1965 Won "Golden Laurel" in the category of "Best Song" "Chim Chim Cher-ee" for Mary Poppins
 * 1965 2nd Place "Golden Laurel" in the category of "Music Men"
 * 1966 3rd place "Golden Laurel" in the category of "Best Song" "That Darn Cat!" for That Darn Cat!

Moscow Film Festival

 * 1973 First Place Award in the category of "Best Music" for Tom Sawyer

National Medal of Arts

 * 2008 National Medal of Arts awarded to Richard and Robert Sherman on November 17, 2008, at the White House by President George W. Bush. This is the highest honor the United States Government bestows on artists.

Olivier Awards

 * 2002 Nominated "Best Musical" for Chitty Chitty Bang Bang.

Songwriters Hall of Fame

 * 2005 induction at the Marriott Hotel on Times Square in New York City.

Theatre Museum Award

 * 2010 Career Achievement Award presented on May 17, 2010, at The Players Club in New York City.

Variety Club Awards

 * 2003 Won "Best Musical" for Chitty Chitty Bang Bang.

Walk of Fame

 * 1976 A Star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame awarded to "Richard & Robert Sherman" on November 17, 1976, located at 6914 Hollywood Blvd.

title: Sherman Brothers