text:
Talk:Ultra-high-energy cosmic ray

hyphens
The hyphens seemed more common, and "particle" lower-case seems more consistent with other particles, that's about as deep a reasoning as I have for this particular choice of name. Stan 06:29, 24 May 2004 (UTC)

BTW, this article demonstrates the evils of orphans; I remembered reading the first article, but had a terrible time finding it. Finally located it in the list of links to Salt Lake City. Stan 06:34, 24 May 2004 (UTC)
 * I've added a back-link from the GZK limit page, which should make it at least a little more accessible. --Christopher Thomas 07:02, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It's a proton or a Micro Black Hole?
Would be a Micro black hole affected by the GZK limit? If not, here's your "best" suspect. --LF1975 (talk) 13:23, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

fastball?
I think the use of fastball gives this piece a look as if it was a joke, can it be re-written slightly more formally? Cokehabit 12:17, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * The article first describes it as 3 × 1020 electronvolts, then 50 joules, and only after those formal measures does it compare it to a fastball. Since an average everyday joe off the street is unlikely to have an intuitive grasp of what those first two measures are like I think it's quite useful to have a comparison to an everyday event like this. Bryan 17:34, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Are you talkign about a baseball batted fastball..? It is unclear for non americans. -- Procrastinating@ talk2me 14:14, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

 * That is why fastball is linked, you can click on it and learn everything you ever wanted to know. :) Bryan 20:44, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

 * Comparing the energy fo UHECRs to a fastball is a somewhat standard practice, from what I've seen. In the same way a parsec is described as "about three light years," UHECRs are given a value that helps everyone understand the energies involved.

Scientific joke?
If I have to use the sentence above - in particle physics I am one of those "joe off the street". However scientist tend to publish scientific jokes sometimes. Is this event confirmed by an independent source or it happened only for a short period in 1991 and only in particular region of Utah? The whole story and the name suggest more towards a joke. A real particle will not be only dubbed but will also be named. All the sources I was able to find through Google sooner or later go to fourmilab.ch. This is a site of an entusiast and not a scientific magazine (as it says in the faq - fermilab is in the other hemisphere). So please provide some verifiable sources. TIA, Goldie (tell me) 18:17, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I think the article mentions something about a proton or so, never heard of this one...gotta be a joke. In good meaning, i recommend to first get acquainted "how to search the internet" -> google it up. Slicky 09:55, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

This is not a new _type_ of particle. This is an ordinary particle (either a proton or an atomic nucleus) moving at speeds more extreme than we've seen just about anything move at. Particles _moving in this manner_ are (whimsically) dubbed "oh-my-god particles". Whimsical naming in this manner is common in science. A relatively recent example is the "sonic hedgehog" gene in fruit flies (one of a series of "hedgehog" genes, named because they produce spiky-looking development defects), but even the names of the quarks show this (up, down, strange, charm, bottom, and top, with the last two formerly called "beauty" and "truth"). --Christopher Thomas 06:08, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Definitely NOT a joke. The name "Oh-My-God" particle was clearly meant to be humorous, but there really have been detections of ultra high energy cosmic rays, which scientists are currently studying. See, for instance:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/288/5469/1147a

http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PRD/v34/i5/p1622_1?qid=75ae0aca4f0202c0&qseq=15&show=10

http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/servlet/GetabsServlet?prog=normal&id=PRLTAO000092000015151101000001&idtype=cvips&gifs=yes

-- tim314

Though these might be valid sources they all require payment: Regardless whether it would be 1p or 1 million, I do not want to pay just to verify a scientific joke (or a nickname). So I still consider the information unconfirmed. For some reasons I am calling the proton a proton, and am not considering it a different particle than the ... proton. If those scientific journals state just a high-energy proton was detected, this whole article ought to be merged as a section at Proton. -- Goldie (tell me) 17:28, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
 * "The content you requested requires a subscription to this site or Science Pay per Article purchase. "
 * "Access to PROLA requires a subscription. PROLA subscriptions are separate from the subscriptions to the current content journals."
 * "If you are not a registered subscriber but would like to purchase this article, use ..."

 * Merging it with proton makes no sense. If it was merged anywhere, it would be with cosmic ray, because it _is_ an extreme example of a cosmic ray. As for the validity of the term, it's used by two of the sources cited in the article. Searching on Google for '"oh my god particle" -wikipedia' (to exclude references sourced from Wikipedia) gives 30,000 hits, indicating that the term is at minimum in common use by laymen and popular press. It appears to have entered popular press via an article written by John Walker discussing the U of Utah detection results. --Christopher Thomas 18:01, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

It still strikes me that people tend to rely on Google for counting but are reluctant to rely on counters for ... er, searching. Moreover using the stated ("oh my god particle" -wikipedia) search pattern produced here only 482 hits. As I am not accessing Google from China, the politically-correct filtering ought not to apply. It was even more weird to me that one of the first-page hits was derived from Wikipedia, was admitting the fact, but Google still have put it in the list. As few hundreds seemed to me still unmanageable I've ruled out "fourmilab" citations too and tried some one-by-one checks.

From what I've seen all references were rumors repeating the rumor (all that very famous John Walker article), and all was based on one-and-only observation! This article here is talking about "at least fifteen similar events confirming the phenomenon" but references do not show any!?! OTOH I've seen numerous theories about the particle type (an example: neutrino coliding to anti-neutrino and emitting some others) but the article is certain it "was" proton. If we look at Vela Incident article, it is talking about much easy verifyable matter but is employing much more cautious approach. Maybe some people understand the Oh My God Almighty and His particles much better than His creatures. -- Goldie (tell me) 11:48, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

 * Just did the search again. Still got "about 30,000" as the hit count. Try it yourself if you like. If you want more observations, follow the links in this article and elsewhere to the AGASA and Fly's Eye detector pages, and look through their publications. One particle with an energy of 3e+20 eV was detected, but many others in the 1e+19 range were also picked up. If you want to fix citations in the article to better reference these, go ahead, but I don't see a problem with the article as it presently stands. --Christopher Thomas 18:46, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

"might be" valid sources? What are you suggesting, that I'm trying to trick you? You are clearly not a practicing physicist, or you would recognize the journals Science and the Physical Review. These are some of the most well known journals of physics (follow the links to their Wikipedia article if you don't believe me.) I appologize for the fact that access to scientific journals generally isn't free, but there's nothing I can do about that. Anyone who does have a subscription (which should be basically any practicing physicist) can easily verify that they are legit. (And if you can even get to the Abstracts for free, it seems to me this should be proof enough, given that they are located at the well-known domains of major scientific journals.) Trust me, this is a real subject of study, and not a joke.

As for the claim that it should be merged with proton, I'm afraid you are missing the point. The "Oh-My-God particle" isn't significant because it's a new kind of particle. It's significant as an old kind of particle with a shockingly high energy. The phenomenon is what's significant (and thus worthy of its own article), not the kind of particle. Similarly, if an amazing flying horse were discovered, it would make sense to give it its own article, not merely a section under horses. Tim314 00:40, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally, Goldie, you may be having trouble finding articles on the Oh-My-God particle because that name is mostly used in the media, not in technical journals. If you want to find real journal articles, you should search for terms like "Fly Eye", "cosmic ray", and "high energy".

There's a free pre-prints archive located at www.arxiv.org. Use the search function to find physics papers with "Fly Eye" in the abstract, and you'll see tons of references to high energy cosmic ray detections. The term "Oh-My-God particle" won't appear in most of them, because that's a non-technical term mainly used with the popular press, but that's what they're talking about. Likewise, real journal articles will refer to the "Higgs boson", not the "God particle" (as it's called in the media). Physicists tend to use cutesy names to get the general public to take some interest to what are actually rather esoteric topics. Tim314 01:05, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Naming/Merging/Splitting
I think the term "Oh-My-God particle" should be dropped entirely from the article. I'm working in the field of high energy cosmic ray physics myself, and had never heard of the term prior to reading this Wikipedia article. -Svenlafe 17:29, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

 * Science has called it that at least twice in Eye Spies Highs in Cosmic Rays' Demise and Oh My God--It's a Real Particle. That seems like enough justification to keep the name. --Strait 18:49, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

 * All right, but the thing is that they are not the same as Ultra High Energy Cosmic Rays (UHECR) at all. UHECR are generally defined to have energies from around 1018 eV (cf. Nagano & Watson 2000, Fonseca 2003), well below the predicted GZK limit at around 5×1019–1020 eV. The reason for the excitement about the cosmic ray discussed in the article is that its energy was above this theoretical limit. Most UHECR are 'well-behaving' cosmic rays, however, and even though their sources may be unclear, their very existence is not challenged, as is the case for cosmic rays above the GZK cut-off. So either the title of this article doesn't make sense, or its content is focusing on the wrong issues.

 * To resolve the situation, I suggest that we do one of the following:
 * Merge this article with the GZK article, since these topics are very closely related, and start a new article on UHECR;
 * Rename this article to 'Extremely High Energy Cosmic Ray' (see e.g. Bhattacharjee & Sigl 1998) and start a new article on UHECR;
 * Change the content of this article to reflect its title.

 * Furthermore, and this is an entirely different issue, we might think of changing the name UHECR to 'Extragalactic Cosmic Rays'. This would:
 * be analogous to the articles on solar cosmic rays and galactic cosmic rays, and
 * allow for a 'natural' classification based on physical cosmic ray sources instead of human-defined boundaries at random energies.

 * Any thoughts?
 * —Svenlafe 15:21, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

 * Your proposals all sound reasonable. I would lean towards keeping roughly the current organization, in which GZK is covered in one article and cosmic rays themselves are discussed in one or more other articles. --Strait 19:19, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Deflection
"Because of its mass the Oh-My-God particle would have experienced very little influence from cosmic electromagnetic and gravitational fields..." and in the 1st external link "A particle with such energy would be deflected little by galactic magnetic fields" Is this a relativistic thing? because classically the force qv x B increases with velocity just as fast as the time spent in the field decreases with it, so deflections are the same for particles of all velocities. Thor2023 19:47, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

 * Yes —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.232.50.153 (talk • contribs) on 01:17, 10 February 2006

 * To give something a bit less cryptic than anon's answer, consider that as the particle's speed approaches that of light from some observer's reference frame, its velocity doesn't change much (still approximately C), and its charge stays the same, but its mass increases drastically. Thus, the force is approximately the same, but the mass its trying to deflect grows, making the particle harder to deflect. --Christopher Thomas 04:13, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

46 nanometers?
Not true, light moves away from everything at a constant rate, no mater what its speed, its called the theory of relativity. I think that should be fixed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.32.72.233 (talk • contribs)

 * True, actually, when measured from the perspective of the observer "at rest." The particle's perspective presumably remains consistent due to time dilation effects and such. Bryan 17:07, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Special relativity does indeed ensure that views of the system from all inertial frames remain consistent. However, the value stated in the article seems to be in error. At 3e20 eV, a proton with a rest mass of 1e9 eV would be moving at about (1-3e-11) C, not the (1-5e-24) C stated. Which source was this value drawn from? --Christopher Thomas 18:07, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

 * This source: . It shows the work used to get that figure. I'll paste it here, where's the error? Bryan 03:34, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

M_0 M =                                                [1] v²        Sqrt[1 - --] c²

 * where M_0 is the particle's rest mass, 0, v is the particle's velocity, and c is the speed of light. Okay, we know that the Oh My God proton has a rest mass of about 1 GeV, and a total kinetic energy of 3×10^20 eV, so let's solve equation [1] for v, setting c to 1 to obtain velocity as a fraction of the speed of light:

 * v = Sqrt[m² - M_0²] / m

 * And thus, approximately:

 * v = 0.9999999999999999999999951 c

 * So taking 3×10^8 metres per second as the speed of light, we find that the particle was traveling 2.9999999999999999999999853×10^8 metres per second, thus 1.467×10^-15 metres per second slower than light--one and a half femtometres per second slower than light. If God's radar gun is slightly out of calibration, this puppy's gonna be doin' hard time for speeding. After traveling one light year, the particle would be only 0.15 femtoseconds--46 nanometres--behind a photon that left at the same time.

 * I think s/he was poitning out that the number of 46 nanometers is incorrect and should be removed entirely or stated something about if the theory of relativity didn't apply. Though while the later would be a unwise idea, they are options. Its true that light moves away from any other object at the speed of light no matter what its speed, even light itself moves away from light at the speed of light(crazy eh?). So my vote is to just remove the reference to being only 46 nanometers away and save us all one big headache. // Robert Maupin 02:00, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

 * But even moving at the speed of light there's still a point where the photon is only 46 nanometers away from the particle. 46 nanometers is about 1.5 light-seconds, so if the OMG particle arrives at a detector 1.5 seconds after the co-originating photon that means it was about 46 nanometers away when the photon hit. The theory of relativity is fine with this since it means that in the OMG particle's frame of reference the photon left it only 1.5 seconds ago (possibly less, does length contraction figure in here or just time dilation?). Bryan 03:34, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Going over my recollections, it looks like I'd botched last night's calculations (used a first-order formula valid only at low speeds - whoops). I've gone through the correct version, which produces an answer that agrees with the one given by John Walker. My (current, hopefully correct) calculations are as follows, for anyone who wanted to see the steps JW omitted:

...And this is close enough to the 5e-24 value the article cites, which is consistent with a lag of about 50 nm.
 * 1) $$M_0 = 1 \cdot 10^9 eV$$
 * 2) $$M \approx 3 \cdot 10^{20} eV$$ (actually it's E + M0, but close enough)
 * 3) $$\frac{M}{M_0} = \sqrt{ \frac{1}{1 - \frac{v^2}{C^2}} }$$ (from SR; we both start with versions of this)
 * 4) $$\left ( \frac{M}{M_0} \right ) ^2 = \frac{1}{1 - \frac{v^2}{C^2}}$$
 * 5) $$\left ( \frac{M_0}{M} \right ) ^2 = 1 - \frac{v^2}{C^2}$$
 * 6) $$\frac{v^2}{C^2} = 1 - \left ( \frac{M_0}{M} \right ) ^2$$
 * 7) $$\frac{v}{C} = \left [ 1 - \left ( \frac{M_0}{M} \right )^2 \right ] ^ { \left ( \frac{1}{2} \right ) }$$ (this is equivalent to JW's ending formula)
 * 8) $$\frac{v}{C} \approx 1 - \left ( \frac{1}{2} \right ) \left ( \frac{M_0}{M} \right )^2$$ (first-order expansion of square root of (1-x) is 1 - (1/2)x, valid because x is much smaller than 1 in this case)
 * 9) $$\frac{v}{C} \approx 1 - 0.5 \left ( \frac{1 \cdot 10^9}{3 \cdot 10^{20}} \right )^2$$
 * 10) $$\frac{v}{C} \approx 1 - 5.6 \cdot 10^{-24}$$

So in summary, I goofed about the values. Sorry for the trouble.

Per the original thread, all of this is consistent with SR, and nobody who replied (including me) said otherwise. Part of the point of relativity is that all observers see light as moving at C, regardless of their motions with respect to each other. An observer on earth sees the particle travel for a year and arrive 50 nm behind a photon emitted at the same place and time. An observer sitting on the particle sees the photon receding at C, but sees a much shorter time between emission and detection, making the viewpoints consistent with each other. --Christopher Thomas 05:53, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

How fast, and what is it?
"The Oh-My-God particle is a proton with the energy of a slow-pitched baseball. And it's moving so fast that after travelling for a year, it would only be a few nanometers behind a photon travelling at the speed of light." OK not an authoratative source, but can someone check the energy calculation? Rich Farmbrough 21:18 30  March 2006 (UTC).

 * Already done for distance (see above). One light-year is about 9e15 m, so at (1-3e-11) C, it'd lag the photon by about 300 km. The value given in press releases, (1-5e-24) C, gives about 50 nm (consistent with the stated distance), but I really don't see how they got that speed value (it's inconsistent with the value I get using special relativity). The energy, 3e20 eV, corresponds to about 50 J. A baseball (weighing about 0.14 kg) with that energy would be moving at about 27 m/s (about 60 mph). I'd like to see where that source got its information, as it looks like recycled press release or Wikipedia material at first glance. --Christopher Thomas 22:19, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Update: I goofed with my original calculations. The value of (1-5e-24) C is correct, as is the 46 nm value. All other values in my previous response are correct. --Christopher Thomas 05:56, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Pitch Speed
Personally I would like a little mroe accuracy in the speed of the basebal, there has bene alot of comments on this reference, elts see if we can clear it up and see what the speed of the baseball would be. Eg i the format of "A baseball pitched at a speed of X would..." it flows decently with the article and probably stop to many more comments being raised about it. -Robert Maupin 03:35, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

 * If a 150 g baseball had a kinetic energy of 50 J it would be moving about 25 m/s. Should I put that in? —Keenan Pepper 03:52, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

 * Sure ,it only helps.-- Procrastinating@ talk2me 09:40, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

 * I'd found 140 g as the mass of a baseball, and got 27 m/s, and about 60 mph, as noted above. By all means put it in, but a mph conversion in parentheses is probably a good idea. --Christopher Thomas 15:46, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Move to UHECR
Instead of having UHECR point to this article, could we move that around? "Oh-my-god" particle isn't exactly a recognized name in any literature I've read. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 132.250.167.155 (talk • contribs).

 * I agree. —Keenan Pepper 21:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

If it hit a human?
what would it happen if it had hit a human? at that energies it would create tremendous pressures on the skin wouldn't it? or would it just pass right through? - jak (talk) 16:01, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

 * Generally, a particle's chance of interacting with matter goes down as its energy goes up, so it would almost certainly just pass right through (along with the many, many other cosmic rays that pass through you every second). If it did interact with you, it would be imparting some of its energy onto an electron or other charged particle in your body, which would then cause a jet of secondary radiation, but you wouldn't notice this either (your chance of getting cancer would go up by some infinitesimally small amount). --Christopher Thomas 20:16, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

 * Christopher Thomas is right. I work at a gamma-ray spectroscopy lab and one of the things we constantly have to deal with is the tendency for high-energy gamma rays not to be completely absorbed by the detector, but to scatter away and leave only a small fraction of their energy, which is useless for our purposes. Even though one of the particles discussed in this article carries as much energy as a baseball, there's no way it could give any significant part of that energy to your body, so you'd never notice it. —Keenan Pepper 23:54, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Ignoring science, it's funny to think about a guy getting blown back a few feet from a particle that nobody can see. It'd be as if an invisible man punched 'em. That's a frickin' crazy amount of energy. BirdValiant 03:31, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd say it would be more like being shot by a very very tiny bullet... -- megA (talk) 10:42, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * A man was hit by a beam of accelerated particles in 1978, and survived, even if half of his face remained paralyzed: http://forgetomori.com/2008/science/hit-by-a-particle-accelerator-beam/ Gravitoweak (talk) 15:07, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Mass
The article doesn't seem to mention its mass. Does anyone know what it is? Would I be right in thinking it's a proton or something of similar mass? raptor 11:14, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

If the OMG particle "hit" a person... It wouldn't or should I say the chances are very very low. Why? Due to the fact the OMG particle is traveling at the speed of light, or almost the speed of light, the chance of it hitting any particle (i.e. electron, proton, neutron) would be highly unlikely. Atoms "vibrate" at very high speeds in relation to the speed of light, however, any motion of the atom or particles would be inconsequential to a single atomic nuclei traveling at the speed of light. It is kind of like trying to shoot a bullet from earth and hit a bullet shot from the moon. This is hard for people to comprehend due to the extreme speeds and vast relative distances of an electron's orbit to the nuclei ratio.

Needs Work
The article talks about the so-called OMG particle, but has very little information about extremely high energy cosmic rays. It should discuss how these particles are studied, for examples with detectors that measure cherenkov flashes in the sky. It should mention how these particles produce a huge pancake of secondary radiation that can be measured and back-tracked by ground detectors. 71.112.95.176 01:28, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

more mysterious?
I think this article is misleading in light of the recent evidence from Pierre Auger Observatory. As I understand it, the evidence points to a potential explanation of the ultra high energy cosmic rays that does NOT violate the GZK bound. The article implies that single observations (like OMG particle) are sufficient evidence for the phenomenon being unexplainable using known physics. Atlytle 02:07, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

clarification required
The sentence "To a static observer, such a proton, traveling at [1 − (5×10−24)] times c, would fall only 46 nanometers behind a photon after one year." doesn't seem to make sense. Could you please explain the set up of this mind-experiment for the uninitiated? Plantsurfer (talk) 10:35, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

 * I think it means that in the static observer's frame of reference the proton is travelling at (1 − (5×10−24))c or (1 − (5×10−24)) light-years per year, whereas a photon travels 1 light-year in one year. So the difference in distance travelled in one year is 5×10−24 light-years, which is about 47.3×10−9 metres. So, apart from the small error in precision (which I have fixed), the calculation in the article (and the source which it cites) is correct. Of course, in the frame of reference of the proton, things look very different - here the photon still travels at 1 light-year per year relative to the proton. Gandalf61 (talk) 13:53, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

 * Thanks, that's much better. Plantsurfer (talk) 14:53, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Loop Quantum Gravity
Doesn't LQG explain ultra-high-energy comsmic rays? 74.14.111.238 (talk) 05:22, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

 * It's predicted to affect the behavior of UHECRs, and to affect light that's propagated large enough distances (from high-Z quasars), and to affect the cosmic microwave background (due to quantization artifacts in the pre-inflationary universe). The problem is that nobody's managed to unambiguously detect any of these signatures, and a related problem is that it's so far been very difficult to come up with predictions in the first place (tying the variables in which LQG is expressed to observable variables is apparently non-trivial and still an area of research).

 * Long story short, it might or might not explain them, and the impression I get is that it's too early to tell (otherwise we'd have experiments underway to conclusively prove or disprove various formulations of LQG by looking at the cosmic ray spectrum). --Christopher Thomas (talk) 07:29, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Tracers
It's hard to tell which of the senses of "tracer" is intended in explaining the source of these cosmic rays.Unfree (talk) 18:19, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Merger proposal
There are several possible explanations for these particles, but only Zevatron has its own very short article. Does it have enough notability beyond being a possible source of ultra-high-energy cosmic rays to warrant it's own article? And are there enough reliable sources to expand it beyond the stub it is now? I propose to merge it into this article and redirect Zevatron here. If the section gets too large we can always fork it off again. Smocking (talk) 17:57, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * After some more digging it seems like Zevatron is just a nickname for any source of ultra-high-energy cosmic rays. Is that correct? In that case we should almost certainly just mention the nickname here and redirect Zevatron to this article. Smocking (talk) 18:07, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

 * From what I can tell from the journal article cited at, the term was coined to refer to acceleration of particles within galactic jets. If this is the case, I'd be against a merger (if anything, it'd be best merged with relativistic jet). My vote would be for keeping it as a standalone stub for now.

 * You'd mentioned doing digging. What other sources did you find that use the term? These should probably be added to the reference section of zevatron. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 19:44, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

 * These two articles  and this book  seem to use the term in the "nickname" way. Or perhaps more precisely: for astrophysical sources as opposed to a result of new physics. The article cited at Zevatron does as well: In this Letter, we put forth the filamentary AGN jets as a promising candidate for the cosmic-ray Zevatron  (first page, right column, somewhere in the middle). Smocking (talk) 21:19, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

 * Fascinating reading; thanks for the links! I withdraw my objections to the merge. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 04:54, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

The article misleads people into thinking that ZeV is an accepted term for 10^21 eV. Zevatron is merely slang or at best jargon used by some ultra-high-energy cosmic ray researchers. The name does not derive from a unit of energy named ZeV. ZeV is derived from the slang term zevatron. A search for zevatron in Google revealed only the use of the term in this Wikipedia article and non physics uses such as a hair restorer advertisement. We missed a chance to simply delete the zevatron article for lack of notability or even notoriety. Now we should repair the damage the merger has done. - Fartherred (talk) 23:46, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Bevatron is short for Billion-electron-volt synchrocyclotron.
 * Tevatron is short for Trillion-electron-volt (or tera-electron-volt) synchrocyclotron.
 * Zevatron must be short for the metric jargon of zetta-electron-volt synchrocyclotron because zillion is not scientific English. The Bevatron and Tevatron were actual working devices. The zevatron is just a metaphor relating to what people might have hypothetically called a synchrocyclotron working up to the energy of one electron charge moved through 10^21 volts.  A Zetta-electron-volt is not an SI unit as far as I know.  - Fartherred (talk) 00:53, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The electronvolt is not an SI unit and hence a ZeV is not an SI unit, but there is nothing ambiguous, undefined or misleading about it as a unit. There seems to be nothing strange in the claim by the article about a zevatron (but whether it is notable and hence should be mentioned, I don't know). —Quondum 04:03, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Things that should be mentioned in the article do not need to be notable. The topic of the article itself must be notable.  Things mentioned should be understandable, and reliably sourced, and reflect the weight of expert opinion.  MeV, GeV, TeV, PeV, and EeV redirect to Electronvolt where they are mentioned in the Energy comparison section.  No one has come up with an energy comparison giving ordniary usage of ZeV.  I suspect there is no ordinary usage of EeV or ZeV.  It took me a little while to find that ZeV meant zetta-electronvolt.  If the purpose of the article is to confuse readers with seldom used units that are unexplained, it succeeded in my case.  I did not know whether to look for an English word or metric prefix to account for a z in the acronym.  I will change the article to explain ZeV, then see what other editors do.  - Fartherred (talk) 10:37, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

The problem of ultrahigh-energy cosmic rays has been completely solved
Mechanism-Revealed Physics (32/40)

Completely solving the problem of ultrahigh-energy cosmic rays by discovering the mysterious source of ultrahigh-energy cosmic rays. The mysterious source of ultrahigh-energy cosmic rays has been widely recognized as one of the most fundamental mysteries in physics and astrophysics for several decades. The problem of ultrahigh-energy cosmic rays has been completely solved by identifying the mysterious source of ultrahigh-energy cosmic rays (P. 574 ~ 577, 5.9, Ch.5C, reference #1), with the newly established MRBHT* as fundamentally indispensable basis. (*Note, MRBHT = Mechanism-Revealed Black Hole Theory, P. 541 ~ 548, 5.5, Ch.5B, reference #1). Be clarified, in solving the problem of ultrahigh-energy cosmic rays, the concept and implication of black holes is based on MRBHT, rather than from current postulate-based black hole theory, i.e., mechanism-revealed black holes rather than postulate-based black holes. First of all and most of all, based on MRBHT, black holes and only black holes, due to their hugely massive nature, can have the ability to generate and emit such ultrahigh-energy cosmic rays, whereas all other ordinary astronomical objects (e.g., a variety of stars) do not have the ability to generate such ultrahigh-energy cosmic rays at all. Second, observational evidence shows that ultrahigh-energy cosmic rays have to originate from the Milky Way galaxy. Therefore, the combination of MRBHT and observational evidence determines the clear and solid conclusion: the black holes in the Milky Way galaxy are the source of ultrahigh-energy cosmic rays observed nearby Earth. In addition, five clues that are supportive of or consistent with the very conclusion are provided and analyzed (P. 574 ~ 577, 5.9, Ch.5C, reference #1). This conclusion is further consolidated by the fact that black holes are the source of gamma ray bursts from the comprehensive and systematic perspective (P. 567 ~ 574, 5.8, Ch.5C, reference #1), since gamma ray is one of the four common types of cosmic rays. The key to understanding the solving the problem of ultrahigh-energy cosmic rays: (i) considering the solving the problem of ultrahigh-energy cosmic rays together with the GZK limit in the famous GZK paradox, along with the reminding that the famous GZK paradox has been completely solved with the discovery of the source of ultrahigh-energy cosmic rays (P. 578 ~ 580, 5.10, Ch.5C, reference #1). (ii) As long as you have known the greatest equation in the history of science, which is Einstein’s famous mass-energy equation (E = mc2 or E0 = mc2), you will easily understand the solving the problem of ultrahigh-energy cosmic rays, because the law of object’s mass doing work (OMDW) (P. 93 ~ 109, Ch.1A, reference #1), which is the root of the solving the problem of ultrahigh-energy cosmic rays (P. 895, reference #2), has also revealed the mechanism behind the greatest equation (P. 114 ~ 118, Ch.1B, reference #1). (iii) The newly established MRBHT is the key to unlocking the mystery of ultrahigh-energy cosmic rays.

Reference #1: 2009, Bingcheng Zhao, From Postulate-Based Modern Physics to Mechanism-Revealed Physics [Vol. 1(1/2)], ISBN: 978-1-4357-4913-9. Reference #2: 2009, Bingcheng Zhao, From Postulate-Based Modern Physics to Mechanism-Revealed Physics [Vol. 2(2/2)], ISBN: 978-1-4357-5033-3.

Ph.D., Bingcheng Zhao, The author of “From Postulate-Based Modern Physics to Mechanism-Revealed Physics” 1401 NE Merman Dr. Apt. 703, Pullman, WA 99163  USA. Email: bczhao12@gmail.com  or   bzhao34@yahoo.com   or   bingcheng.zhao@gmail.com  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.52.246.120 (talk) 19:11, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

 * Wikipedia is not the place to try to publish or popularize your own ideas. See WP:OR and WP:RS. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 19:17, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Most Energetic Cosmic Rays from Graviton Acceleration
There is another possible source for the most energetic cosmic rays that should be listed. A significant and reasonable explanation for the origin of the most energetic cosmic rays could be based on gravitational acceleration. A reference could be given to www1.iwvisp.com/LA4Park/CosmicRays.txt, which serves as evidence that mentioning it would not be original research (as it is already published) on the Internet. Cosmic rays could have their kinetic energies increased by absorbing more attractive gravitons head-on than tail-on. That would apply if the speed of light is constant with respect to the frame containing the preponderance of particular-interacting-matter, given that gravity absorption evidence has been observed during some total solar eclipses. One can see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allais_effect and prd.aps.org/abstract/PRD/v62/i4/e041101 for examples of this absorption evidence. Alden E. Park (talk) 06:32, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Oh-My-God particle
Content of Oh-My-God particle was forked from here, and people have been making half-hearted attempts to merge it back ever since. The content of 'Oh-My-God particle' is almost completely duplicated in the target, the 'name' has no real independent notability, and there is no potential for expansion. This should be merged back, with a redirect to the relevant section. Revent talk 23:16, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
 * A quick scan on google-scholar shows that the term is used academically, especially in conjunction with the first to be detected. Like the Wow! signal, it seems to stand out enough to warrant a colloquialism. Kleuske (talk) 13:20, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Iron Nuclei
I've edit out the parts where it says that it's a proton, and replaced it with Iron Nuclei because of this article: the team has found evidence that these highest-energy cosmic rays might be iron nuclei, rather than the protons that make up most cosmic rays. http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100222/full/4631011a.html

Michel_sharp (talk) 23:10, 21 June 2015 (UTC+01:00)

10^20 ev corresponds to 7.7 * 10^23 kelvins
2* 10^20 ev/(3*Boltzmann's constant) = 7.7 * 10^23 kelvins

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Astro/timlin.html

Just granpa (talk) 18:49, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Relation with dark matter
It may be worth mentioning that the candidate dark matter particle mass -- 15 times the proton mass, or 1.4e10 eV -- has been excluded by later research. For example, Calmet & Kuipers use quantum gravity to show that a particle heavier than about 1e7 eV needs to either interact with photons (hence not dark) or decay on a timescale shorter than the age of the universe (hence not a candidate for dark matter in today's universe).

But I'm not sure how to work this in or if this is even appropriate so I'm just leaving this here. - CRGreathouse (t | c) 13:30, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:Ultra-high-energy cosmic ray


text:
Danius

Danius (Daned map Saessyllt) was a legendary king of the Britons as recounted by Geoffrey of Monmouth. He came to power in 361BC.

He was son of Sisillius II, brother of Kinarius and was succeeded by his illegitimate son Morvidus.

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

title: Danius


text:
Talk:George S. Patton

Antisemitic Views
It is not clear to me in this section whether he was talking about Jews as a race, or just the fact that the Jews were treated worse than others, and thus were in even poorer condition. Jokem (talk) 07:52, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Really? This quote clearly shows that General Patton considered the Jews subhuman like the Nazis did, the only thing he disagreed with was the mass genocide of the Jews. In other quotes, he complains about the "semitic and communist influence in the American mainstream media" which "criticizes him and German society". There is also his pre-coldwar quote about Russians as "Asians = barbarians who doesn't value human life." Patton was a psychopath (judging by his treatment of a wounded American soldier whom he beat and wanted to shoot) and an ordinary ideological fascist of the time. But at the same time he was most talented american general of WW2. History is not always "good guys" vs "bad guys" like it on Hollywod, you see. TyronMcLannister (talk) 12:40, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, Really. Calling him a psychopath is POV.  He had a temper and did not tolerate cowardice, this does not rise to the level of mental illness.  Jokem (talk) 12:53, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

 * That was not so much about Jews as about all displaced persons found in German camps . That was bad. My very best wishes (talk) 23:27, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

@ I am here. All literature on this subject, time period and particular quote (and dozens of others made by Patton specifically about DP Jews) make no debate on who he was referring to when he wrote these words in his diary. Taken out of context without proper sourcing and follow-up leaves the uninformed reader with the personal subjective to define "they" as they would wish to interpret. The NYTimes article does not even remotely refer to this quote (or anything else in the article) to "all" DPs but specifically and only "Jewish DPs". As does this article: Richard Cohen: "If they (the Jewish DP) ...", and this:  Jewish Library - Eisenhower quote specifically about the Jewish DPs: "we appear to be treating the Jews as the Nazis treated them except that we do not exterminate them ... One is led to wonder whether the German people, seeing this, are not supposing that we are following or at least condoning Nazi policy." The “military guard” for these Jewish DPs was Patton’s idea. Spartacus Educational: "George Patton received a report written by Earl G. Harrison about the way the Jews in Germany were being treated by the US Army after the war. Patton wrote about the report in his diary on 15th September, 1945" (the very quote in question) Politico: "The orders from above—Eisenhower wanted him to confiscate the houses of wealthy Germans so Jewish survivors could live in them—embittered Patton." Patton wrote: “the displaced sons-of-bitches in the various camps are blooming like green trees,” he wrote a friend. He saw journalists’ criticism of his handling of the Jews and the return of Nazis to high official positions as a result of Jewish and Communist plots. While Eisenhower ordered him to stop “mollycoddling Nazis". Patton remarked that the camps had been clean and decent before the arrival of the Jewish “DPs” (displaced persons), who were “pissing and crapping all over the place.” Eisenhower told Patton to shut up, but he continued his diatribe, telling Eisenhower he planned to make a nearby German village “a concentration camp for some of these goddam Jews.”

Please provide sources that back the claim of the editors in questions who have stated only person opinions about the term "displaced persons" as being "all" in regards to this particular quote. History surrounding the impetus for Patton writing in his diary proves why he wrote the words and to whom he was referring. No source shows Patton referring to any other DP during this time with the same terminology or language as he does when he speaks of the Jewish DPs in letters, diaries and recorded personal conversations. In fact, he glorifies the Nazi prisoners and heralds them as heroes. All historical and expert sources confirm that Patton was clearly referring to Jewish DP. If the quote needs to be accompanied by further sources or addition content to better the understanding for readers, then this can be accomplished. But until an editor can provide reliable and clear sources equal in number that state Patton was not referring to Jewish DPs to those that back the claim that he was in this quote, then it must remain in the section.

The above discussion was / is highly subjective and personal in opinion not relating to this subject (mental illness, pre-cold war). This discussion - as you directed me to via bold reversion - is not a consensus. The fact that the quotes that stand in section currently directly relating to "Patton [referencing the] Jewish survivors in displaced persons camps which he oversaw" proves what his active duty was at the time and who he was referring to. Maineartists (talk) 14:31, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Couple few things... I did not "direct you to this discussion", just the talk page in general, as BRD suggests you should've started a dicussion instead of reverting that edit again. But if you would rather tack on your comments to this thread, so be it. As for your comments, they are rather lengthy and you didn't provide a tl;dr version, so it'll take me a bit to digest and respond. Meanwhile, the edit you reverted was first added by and then first reverted by  before you or I arrived on the scene, so they should be pinged and given an opportunity to take part here. And so with that... we'll go from there. Ttys -  w o lf  17:07, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

 * This appears to be a fuller version of the quote from his diary, commenting on a report written by Earl G. Harrison about the way the Jews in Germany were being treated by the US Army after the war
 * "One of the chief complaints is that the DP (Displaced Person) are kept in camps under guard. Of course Harrison is ignorant of the fact that if they were not kept under guard they would not stay in the camps, would spread over the country like locusts and should eventually have to be rounded up after quite a few of them had been shot and quite a few Germans murdered and pillaged."

 * "The brilliant Mr. Harrison further objected to the sanitary conditions. Again being ignorant of the fact that we frequently have to use force in order to prevent the inmates - Germans, Jews and other people - from defecating on the floor when ample facilities are provided outside."

- https://spartacus-educational.com/2WWpatton.htm

 * The second phrase suggests he is lumping all DP's together and not singling out Jews for that comment.
 * I believe this later quote from the same diary entry is far more damning of him though, and is quite specific:
 * "Harrison and his ilk believe that the Displaced Person is a human being which he is not, and this applies particularly to the Jews who are lower than animals."

 * However, the "lower than animals phrase" is already used in the section. It seems redundant to use two quotes from the same short diary entry, especially when the existing entry in the article covers his opinion emphatically, while the one recently reverted is one open to question.
 * (Hohum @ ) 17:40, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * As I was not the OP nor the editor that reverted him, I addressed the editor who reverted me (without any history summary, by the way, except WP: BLD and a directive to go to the Talk Page). If what you say is correct, then Hohum should have brought the discussion here. I provided more than an adequate history summary (TL:DR) to warrant my revert. That being said, I tacked it onto this discussion because your initial summary directive was lacking in specifics, to say the least. So "going to the Talk Page" and seeing a section on Anti-semitic views and a discussion on DPs; I gathered this was your intent. My apologies if you were merely telling me where to go in general. Regardless, it is unproductive to point out "should haves" when the topic at hand is the above discussion. Lengthy or not, if my summary was not enough to warrant a reversion, then it stands to reason sources with extracted quotes to save time will have to suffice. Let us proceed and not divert from the task at hand. Thanks. Maineartists (talk) 17:49, 28 January 2023 (UTC) Maineartists (talk) 17:49, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

This seems a clear case of why primary sources are a problem. Should we not find a good secondary source that includes the context? --John (User:Jwy/talk) 18:37, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * There are plenty of secondary sources. See above. @ If there is such a debate as to whether or not Patton was specifically generalizing all DPs in this specific quote, even though related Patton correspondences link exact verbiage to his speech on Jewish DPs solely, then we should provide separate supporting sources to back the claim that Patton spoke derogatory of other DPs at this time (Nazi prisoners, Jewish supporters) separate from what he said specifically about Jewish DPs. It is difficult to know from a personal editorial standpoint who Patton is talking about at specific times in his writings. Here he is speaking of all DPs: "gain being ignorant of the fact that we frequently have to use force in order to prevent the inmates - Germans, Jews and other people - from defecating on the floor when ample facilities are provided outside." But here he is specifically talking about Jewish DPs: "the camps had been clean and decent before the arrival of the Jewish DPs who were “pissing and crapping all over the place.” Likewise, Patton did not say such quotes for all DPs: “the displaced sons-of-bitches in the various camps are blooming like green trees" much like the original quote: "they would not stay in the camps, would spread over the country like locusts", but specifically for Jewish DPs. But I am not allowed to make that connection as personal opinion. It must be backed by reliable secondary sources. When experts and historians in the field specifically draw definitive conclusions that Patton was referring to Jewish DP, then there can be no debate. However, I'm willing to stop the splitting hairs and work for the betterment of the section. I do feel there is more to be said on this topic. If you feel there is too much ambiguity about this particular DP reference, then there is much more that Patton said and wrote about the Jews during this time that was not in his diary. Am I correct that your only objection was that of redundancy within the same source and not of an expansion on the section as a whole? Thanks. Maineartists (talk) 21:06, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * My position is that using unambiguous quotes supported by reliable secondary sources conveys information the most clearly. Also, yes, using multiple fragments from the same couple of paragraphs of his diary to restate the same information is redundant, and opens up potential accusations of cherrypicking repeatedly from one "event".
 * Additionally, the best reliable sources would be from educators, historians, etc. Not journalists. (Hohum @ ) 21:21, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi, I'm the one who added the following: "If they were not kept under guard, they would not stay in the camps, would spread over the country like locusts, and would eventually have to be rounded up after quite a few of them had been shot and quite a few Germans murdered and pillaged."
 * When it was reverted by @Hohum, his excuse was, "This is a comment about all displaced persons, which isn't only Jews, and it's unclear whether it's antisemitic, or an attempt to prevent reprisals and deaths."
 * I actually agree that the quote may not specifically refer to Jews. If he is indeed talking about DPs generally, and not Jews specifically, then I can see your point in suggesting that it does not belong under "Antisemitism". When I added the quote, I believed that it added fuller context as to why Patton made those anti-Jewish remarks, as he believed they would become a danger to civilians if they were to escape.
 * Where I would take serious issue is your remark that it's unclear whether Patton's desire was "antisemitic" or "an attempt to prevent reprisals and deaths." I do not see why there has to be dichotomy between the two. It's like asking whether someone really dislikes Woody Allen's films, or if they're just antisemitic. Sometimes, the answer is both.
 * What I do think would be an incredibly useful addition to the "Antisemitism" section, whether my contribution is kept or not, are dates for Patton's antisemitic journal entries. This is especially important, as Patton had remarked in Spring of 1945 on his visit to the Ohrdruf concentration camp on the brutality of the Germans towards their prisoners (in a letter to Eisenhauer, not yet included in this article.) Making clear whether Patton's antisemitic remarks regarding Jewish prisoners preceded or anteceded his visit to Ohrdruf is very important to understanding his thinking. Is it not incredibly valuable to know whether Patton first visited the concentration camps (detailed in this article), decrying the conditions there in a letter to Eisenhauer, (not yet in this article), but later came to blame the conditions in the camps on the prisoners themselves (also not yet in this article), or whether this happened in the reverse order?
 * I agree that if the quote regarding DPs is not in fact about Jews (though I believe it is, if not specifically and exclusively) it probably does not  belong in the antisemitism section, though I think the remark does add value to the article by putting into context Patton's opinions regarding Jews. After all, the quotes used to illustrate Patton's antisemitism in this article are entirely quotes regarding Jews in concentration camps, and not Jews of any other kind. Harry Sibelius (talk) 09:29, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
 * My 21:37, 28 January 2023 (UTC) reply below still applies. Your logic above might be correct, but it is original research - unless it is cited by non-primary, reliable resource(s). --John (User:Jwy/talk) 16:20, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, I believe the source I used when I added the quote was a secondary source: a Washington Post article by a Jewish author commenting on Patton's diary entries, and making the assumption that the "Displaced Persons" referred to in the primary-source (Patton's diary) were Jews. Harry Sibelius (talk) 06:54, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * My point about the dates is simply that the dates of Patton's letters and diary entries have been very difficult for me to find, and I think that the dates would be easier to find if I had the primary-source (the diaries). Harry Sibelius (talk) 07:07, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * @Hohum@Jwy@MaineartistsSo, shall I revert the edit to include my addition of the quote on displaced persons, portraying them as Jews, now that it is clear that my source was a secondary-source which provided commentary? Harry Sibelius (talk) 09:15, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
 * @Harry Sibelius Although I am confident that Patton was indeed referring to Jewish DP in this specific quote, I must agree that consensus errs on the side of ambiguity to uninformed readers when the quote stands alone. Without supporting the quote with addition sourced content to explain who Patton was referencing, the argument for both sides can still be presented; and to include all of the above just to validate this one term seems a bit undue weight. Unless the section itself is expanded to show more examples of Patton's anti-semtism to include this quote with the RS named above, I think the quote that is there now is sufficient. But I will wait to hear what @Hohum and @Jwy have to say. Thanks. Maineartists (talk) 11:26, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not arguing either side of the discussion, just pointing out that ANY interpretation of the primary source should be supported in the article by secondary sources(s) (not just here on this talk page). --John (User:Jwy/talk) 21:37, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Agreed. Maineartists (talk) 21:45, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Does anyone still have a problem with the inclusion of this quote:
 * "If they were not kept under guard,” Patton wrote in his diary, “they would not stay in the camps, would spread over the country like locusts, and would eventually have to be rounded up after quite a few of them had been shot and quite a few Germans murdered and pillaged.”
 * The objections, I seem to remember, were that it was not clear whether he was referring to Jews specifically or not, and that the source I used was primary (it wasn't; it's from a Washington Post article analyzing Patton's diaries). Harry Sibelius (talk) 04:08, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is written mostly in summary style, not with numerous quotations, and the paragraph already has five quotations from Patton. Per WP:OVERQUOTING, overuse happens when "quotations are used to explain a point that can be paraphrased" or "dominate the article or section", and "Quotations shouldn't replace plain, concise text." A sixth quotation from Patton, especially a long quotation, is probably WP:UNDUE here. If the paragraph is expanded, concise descriptions summarizing WP:BESTSOURCES should be emphasized instead. Llll5032 (talk) 11:18, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Sure. The quotations from Patton in this section are not all regarding the same subject, though. One is about denazification, three are about Jewish DPs, and one is about the Jewish influence on the press. These are separate subjects. We already have three other basically interchangeable quotes form Patton on Jewish DPs: "This applies particularly to the Jews who are lower than animals" "stinking mass of humanity" "Of course, I have seen them since the beginning and marveled that beings alleged to be made in the form of God can look the way they do or act the way they act". We could remove at least one of these, since they basically attest to the same thing, and replace it with the "locusts" quote, since it adds understanding of Patton's reasoning behind his actions in a way that is currently lacking. There is even a quote from Martin Blumenson in this section, meant to summarize Patton's actions during the occupation, suggesting that the reason behind them was insanity, but no quote from Patton himself on the subject. This seems undue, considering that Patton himself gave an explanation for his actions that is not currently quoted in the article. Harry Sibelius (talk) 21:26, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Longstanding content usually gets more deference than newly proposed content (see WP:EDITING and WP:EDITCON), but perhaps other editors will favor removing of one of the longstanding quotations. Harry, do any WP:BESTSOURCES consider the "locusts" quotation to be important? The source you cite for it is a WP:RSOPINION source (which means it is in a reliable publication but is marked as "opinion"); although it may be usable, it is not considered as good as a high-quality book or high-quality journal article. If you can show that WP:BESTSOURCES consider the "locusts" quotation important to understanding Patton, then you could make a stronger argument for including it based on WP:DUEWEIGHT. Last, are you certain that paraphrasing is inadequate for explaining his actions, and why? Llll5032 (talk) 02:53, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I think that's actually a pretty good paraphrase you've made, except that it doesn't quite reflect Patton's fear that many of the prisoners themselves would end up shot, or that he would have to re-arrest them eventually after letting them go. Harry Sibelius (talk) 06:02, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * All right, I tried a different paraphrase, aiming to stay concise. Llll5032 (talk) 13:31, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

I can't imagine viewing the life of a ww2 officer through the uberwoke 202?'s lense will go over well. I can't imagine criticizing the man who literally fought and defeated Hitlers 3rd Reich. I just feel his actions here might outweigh any words. Jjmanning25 (talk) 14:12, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

 * You obviously can imagine it, because you just posited it. Nowhere have I criticized General Patton, and I am not sure anyone else here has, either. Harry Sibelius (talk) 00:04, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Denazification
That he trivialized denazification is not cited. I only found it on History.com, which is marked as generally unreliable Wikipedia:GUNREL. It can be found in intro, just cntrl+f nazification. Captchacatcher (talk) 13:18, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

What is in a name?
Would someone please add something that explains why the General is known as George S. Patton "Junior", when his grandfather is denoted as George S. Patton I and his father is listed as George S. Patton II? I cannot reconcile this anomaly, especially when Patton names his son George S. Patton IV. Perhaps I missed this, but it is not in the Early Life section, where the Patton lineage is discussed in length. MissMaryMack14 (talk) 21:44, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Can an admin strike through my edits because I don't want anyone to learn anything from my edits?
After editing this article, I seem to have been reverted by some very, very clever people who are so clever they don't think anyone else needs to know any more information about Patton's death. Using such a clever argument about my grammar (ho ho if only you knew who I was really was) - and of course I am being polite - because it's so so important to be polite to these individuals who sign up to do free work on this site for those little badges. That what they have written is preserved.

I therefore demand that my edits are struck through by an admin so no one else can know and thus learn anything from what I wrote. I don't want others to know the location of Patton's crash, the name of the street it happened on, and other historical details. Can this be done? I mean luckily there are so many other professionally written web articles (hence where I got my own info from) others can start from scratch and do their own research. Hence I don't want my edits to be a help to anyone on here so I want my edits struck through and kept from public view.146.90.208.242 (talk) 21:45, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Typically, if content has been added in good faith, it doesn't violate the copyrights of someone else's work, the content is appropriate for the article and supported by reliable sourcing, then demanding it be removed out of spite is not really a sufficiecnt reason. Once you contribute content to Wikipedia, it's not really yours anymore, (you'll find more info on that here and here). If your experience here has left you with a bad taste, it's probably best to just walk away. I'm not suggesting you leave Wikipedia completely, but instead perhaps consider working on a different arricle. (jmho) - w o lf  03:44, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Unless the poster has violated Wiki policy, inviting him to stop working non an article smacks of censorship? Jokem (talk) 06:00, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Suggesting they take a break from an article that is leading to such ill-will that they are demanding content be censored out spite is just that... a suggestion. And you somehow think it's a bad one? - w o lf  06:46, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

 * OP, since you made this request on 2 July, an unknowable number of editors could have looked back through the history and identified exactly what you have contributed. Then, in case your request is ever acted on, they could have strategically kept a record of your edits, and then, once they've been expunged from the article's history and the article proper, they could just add them back in under their own editorships. So the info is not going to be lost no matter what happens. Best to just walk away. --  Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  09:20, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * you are spot on - it is very interesting that the death circumstances are absolute - even the mention of assassination is not tolerated in the article or the front talk page it seems - going to the archives shows that in the past was some discussion about it - even sweden aka hidden hand / esse non videri / nobel / mordor - is mentioned in the archives .. but well .. something is very fishy - wikipedia imho part of the rug that is pulled .. tolkien's books are also interesting in this respect .. just leaving bread crumbs .. Ebricca (talk) 19:47, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:George S. Patton


text:
User:Wolfye

Wolfye is the pseudonym of Christopher Carr, a programmer and photographer located in Melbourne, Australia.

The name Wolfye is short for Wolfgang. From 1985, Chris was an active member of the Society for Creative Anachronism (SCA). His persona in the society was that of an early 17th century cavalier, born in Transylvania who grew up in France named Wolfgang Travaal. From 1985 until 1993, Chris remained a member of the society and as there were three gentlemen named Chris in the local group, he became know as Wolfye to avoid confusion.

Chris is able to program in many different languages (C#, C++, Delphi, Java, Perl, VB, SQL) and has a thorough knowledge of object-oriented design. He speaks English and conversational French.

Chris's main photographic project is taking photographs of cemeteries Australia, though he has taken photographs from other cemeteries around the world as well. His site, theGravenImage has many examples of his work.

title: User:Wolfye


text:
User:Marine 69-71

 * Some Famous People I've Met and Whose Autographs I Have

I became an "Administrator" on May 31, 2005

Articles which I have authored
List of articles: which I have authored (In 18 articles I have contributed 50%+ of content)  Table of Contents

1. Actors, Actresses, Comedians, Directors and Television show hosts 2. Authors, Historians, Playwrights, and Poets 3. Beauty Queens and Supermodels 4. Business people and Industrialists 5. Cartoonists 6. Civil rights and/or Political activists 7. Composers, Musicians, and Singers 8. Criminals and Outlaws 9. Educators 10. Governors 11. Journalists 12. Judges and Law Enforcement Officers 13. Military people 14. Politicians 15. Religious leaders 16. Scientists, Physicians and Inventors  17.Sports people  18. Taínos 19. Visual artists 20. Puerto Rican history 21. Puerto Rican Military history 22. Puerto Rican Nationalist Party series 23. Immigration series to and from Puerto Rico 24.Other Puerto Rican related articles  25.Hispanic Medal of Honor recipients  26. Non Puerto Rican military bios. 27. Non Puerto Rican bios. 28. Military related articles 29. Articles and photo galleries of historical interest

Senate Resolution # 3603
The President of the Puerto Rican Senate, the Honorable Kenneth McClintock presented me this resolution honoring my Puerto Rican related work in Wikipedia on behalf of the government. This may very well be the first time in history that a government recognizes someone for his work in Wikipedia.

USAJFKSWCS Medal of Excellence
USAJFKSWCS Medal of Excellence presented to me by Brigadier General Hector E. Pagan on Memorial Day of May 26, 2008.

Joint Task Force Commander's Coin and Certificate for Excellence
Joint Task Force Commander's Coin and Certificate for Excellence presented to Tony (The Marine) Santiago by Brigadier General Rafael O'Ferrall on October 5, 2009.

Cover of Wikimedia Foundation's 2012-2013 Annual Report

I am honored to be on the cover of "Ten years of sharing and learning", Wikipedia's Foundation's 2012-2013 Annual Report with Wikipedians Lutho, Ravan Jaafar Altaie, Amina and James Forrester.

Public Law 109-253 in the U.S. House of Representatives contains one of my articles
The following Bill Dr. Jose Celso Barbosa Post Office Building Designation Act introduced to the United States House of Representatives by Congressman Luis Fortuño, contains the mini-biography of Dr. Jose Celso Barbosa which I wrote. The bill was signed by President Bush on August 1, 2006. It's now Public Law 109-253.

 Wikipedia Awards and Recognitions Page

Not Featured, but Extremely Good Articles Note: All my articles are "Good", but these are better, so they say
The Good Article Medal of Merit awarded August 26, 2007

My Articles in DYK
All-time DYK record for most page views

"Boricua" Barnstars
 Barnstar Award Versions That I've Created Boricua Barnstar

"To be award to those dedicated users who have made significant amount of contributions or improvements to articles related to a particular country" (example: Puerto Rico, shown above). Puerto Rico National Merit Medal To be award to dedicated users whose contributions and dedication to articles regarding Puerto Rico are above and beyond from what is normally expected and have helped provide a positive image of the island.
 * "Recipient should have at least one featured article about Puerto Rico" or
 * "Has created a significant amount of Puerto Rico related articles".

License
 I agree to multi-license all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

title: User:Marine 69-71


text:
F-22 Raptor (video game)

F-22 Raptor is a combat flight simulation video game released by Novalogic in 1997.

Gameplay
The game involves modern air combat in several campaigns and missions. The campaigns are set around fictional wars in areas such as Angola, Jordan, Russia, Colombia, and Iran, with the player fighting for the United States.

Reception
The game received favorable reviews according to the review aggregation website GameRankings.

title: F-22 Raptor (video game)


text:
Siegfried Wagner

Siegfried Helferich Richard Wagner (6 June 1869 – 4 August 1930) was a German composer and conductor, the son of Richard Wagner. He was an opera composer and the artistic director of the Bayreuth Festival from 1908 to 1930.

Life
Siegfried Wagner was born in 1869 to Richard Wagner and his future wife Cosima (née Liszt), at Tribschen on Lake Lucerne in Switzerland. Through his mother, he was a grandson of Franz Liszt, from whom he received some instruction in harmony.

Some youthful compositions date from about 1882. After he completed his secondary education in 1889, he studied with Wagner's assistant Engelbert Humperdinck, but was more strongly drawn to a career as an architect and studied architecture in Berlin and Karlsruhe.

In 1892 he undertook a trip to Asia with a friend, the English composer Clement Harris. During the voyage he decided to abandon architecture and commit himself to music. Reputedly, it was also Harris who first aroused his homoerotic impulses. While on board, he sketched his first official work, the symphonic poem Sehnsucht, inspired by the poem of the same name by Friedrich Schiller. This piece was not completed until just before the concert in which Wagner conducted it in London on 6 June 1895. Though his works are numerous, none entered the standard repertory.

He made his conducting debut as an assistant conductor at Bayreuth in 1894; in 1896 he became associate conductor, sharing responsibility for conducting the Ring Cycle with Felix Mottl and Hans Richter, who had conducted its premiere 20 years earlier. In 1908 he took over as artistic director of the Bayreuth Festival in succession to his mother, Cosima.

Wagner was bisexual. For years, his mother urged him to marry and provide the Wagner dynasty with heirs, but he fought off her increasingly desperate urgings.

Around 1913, pressure on him increased due to the Harden–Eulenburg affair (1907–1909), in which the journalist Maximilian Harden accused several public figures, most notably Philipp, Prince of Eulenburg, a friend of Kaiser Wilhelm II, of homosexuality. In this climate, the family found it suitable to arrange a marriage with a 17-year-old Englishwoman, Winifred Klindworth, and at the Bayreuth Festival of 1914 she was introduced to the then-45-year-old Wagner. The two married on 22 September 1915.

The couple had four children: Though the marriage provided for the dynastic succession, the hope that it would also bring an end to his homosexual encounters and the associated costly scandals was disappointed, as Wagner remained sexually active with other men.
 * 1) Wieland (1917–1966)
 * 2) Friedelind (1918–1991)
 * 3) Wolfgang (1919–2010)
 * 4) Verena (1920–2019)

Peter P. Pachl, one of Siegfried's biographers, asserted that Siegfried had sired an illegitimate son, Walter Aign (1901–1977); several recent authors, such as Frederic Spotts and Brigitte Hamann, have taken it up.

Wagner died in Bayreuth in 1930 aged 61, having outlived his mother by only four months. Since his two sons were still only adolescents, he was succeeded at the helm of the Bayreuth Festival by his widow Winifred.

Operas
See List of operas by Siegfried Wagner

Orchestral works

 * March for Gottfried der Spielmann (c. 1882)
 * Orchestration of Ekloge from Liszt's Années de Pèlerinage (1890)
 * Sehnsucht, symphonic poem after Schiller (1892–1895)
 * Concertino for flute and small orchestra (1913)
 * Violin Concerto (1915)
 * Und wenn die Welt voll Teufel wär, scherzo for orchestra (1922)
 * Glück, symphonic poem (1922–23) [dedicated to the memory of Clement Harris]
 * Symphony in C major (1925, rev. 1927). (First version used the Prelude to Der Friedensengel as the slow movement, whereas a new movement was composed for the revised version. The scherzo is based on the sketches for an unfinished orchestral tone poem, Hans im Glück )

Vocal music

 * 1890 "Abend auf dem Meere", for soprano and piano – text: Henry Thode
 * 1890 "Frühlingsglaube", for soprano and piano – text: Ludwig Uhland
 * 1890 "Abend am Meer" – text: Alfred Meissner
 * 1897 "Schäfer und Schäferin"
 * 1913 "Das Märchen vom dicken fetten Pfannekuchen", for solo voice and orchestra
 * 1918 "Wahnfried-Idyll"
 * 1919 "Nacht am Narocz", for tenor and piano – text: Günther Holstein
 * 1922 "Ein Hochzeitslied für unseren Erich und seine liebe 'Dusi
 * 1927 "Dryadenlied"
 * 1927 "Weihnacht"
 * "Frühlingsblick" – text: Nikolaus Lenau
 * "Frühlingstod" – text: Nikolaus Lenau

title: Siegfried Wagner


text:
M1A1

M1A1, M1-A1, M1 A1, or M-1A1 may refer to:

Military

 * M1A1 Abrams, a variant of the M1 Abrams battle tank
 * M1A1 carbine, a variant of the M1 carbine with a folding stock for paratroopers
 * M1A1 Flamethrower, an anti-personnel weapon
 * M1A1 bazooka, a variant of the bazooka rocket launcher
 * Thompson M1A1, a variant of the Thompson submachine gun
 * M1A1, an anti-aircraft 90 mm gun
 * M1A1, a U.S. Army bangalore torpedo used in World War II

Other uses

 * M1A1, a port of the computer game Marathon
 * "M1 A1", a song on the album Gorillaz by Gorillaz

title: M1A1


text:
M3A1

M3A1 may refer to:

 * M3A1 Bradley, a variant of an American armored reconnaissance vehicle
 * Stuart tank, an American light tank
 * M3 Half-track, an American armored vehicle
 * M3 submachine gun, an American submachine gun
 * M3 Scout Car, an American armored car

title: M3A1


text:
Morvidus

Morvidus (Welsh: Morydd map Daned) was a legendary king of the Britons from 341 to 336 BCE., as recounted by Geoffrey of Monmouth. He reigned from 355BC. He was the illegitimate son of Danius by his mistress Tangustela.

Life
Geoffrey portrays him as being an ill-tempered yet kind ruler most of the time. Most of the time he gave out gifts handsomely. During his reign, the king of the Morini invaded Northumberland and laid waste to the countryside. Morvidus met the king of Moriani in battle and defeated the invaders. After the battle, he had every captive soldier brought before him and personally killed each one, feeding his lust for blood. When he became tired, he skinned and burned the remaining soldiers.

He fought and killed a giant using an uprooted tree stripped of bark and branches. For this reason, he is associated with the symbol of a ragged staff, which appears in the crest of the Earl of Warwick who are believed to be descended from Morvidus.

Later in his reign, a dragon or monster appeared from the Irish Sea and began devouring the inhabitants of the western shores. In an attempt to stop this, Morvidus met the beast in single-combat and used every weapon he could against her, but to no avail. The monster lunged at Morvidus and consumed him. Morvidus had five sons: Gorbonianus, Archgallo, Elidurus, Ingenius, and Peredurus, all of which became kings of the Britons. Of these five sons, Gorbonianus, the eldest, was his direct successor.

title: Morvidus


text:
Talk:Verbal arithmetic

Which Vatriquant?
Some web pages (including a couple of French ones) give "Maurice Vatriquant" or "M. Vatriquant" as the true name of Minos, the coiner of the name "crypt-arithmetique". However Don Knuth and David Singmaster give "S. Vatriquant". Who is right? Both? Jorge Stolfi 06:50, 24 May 2004 (UTC)

Usefulness of casting out nines
I don't see the usefulness of casting out nines for solving alphametics, at least 2-addend ones. For example, in SEND + MORE = MONEY, M, O, S and R are solved in short order. The casting out nines rule then gives you E + D - Y + 1 = 0 mod 9. But this constraint doesn't give you anything that the right-most column doesn't. In general, casting out nines gives you equations with too many variables. Other techniques are much more helpful: Unless other types of alphametic puzzles get more mileage out of casting out nines, I'm inclined to remove its mention as an effective technique, and point the reader at techniques that work a little better. JamesMayfield 19:33, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * mod 10 arithmetic
 * treating columns as simultaneous equations
 * carry analysis
 * parity
 * Right you are. However, writing the equations modulo p, for prime numbers p, gives additional hints about the solution.  This is a common method for solving diophantine equations. --Jorge Stolfi 11:39, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Cryptic Sudoku and Kakuro
I removed this sentence because I could not make sense out of it:
 * Examples are variants of Sudoku and Kakuro in which clues are given in terms of cryptic alphametics such as NUMBER+NUMBER=KAKURO which has a unique solution 186925+186925=373850.  Another example is SUDOKU=IS*FUNNY whose solution is 426972=34*12558.

In Sudoku, the numerical value of the digits is irrelevant; they are just nine different symbols, that cannot be repeated in the same row, column, or block. In Kakuro, the clues are sums of digits along each entry. In either casse, I don't see how clues to the solution are given using cryptarithms. This same sentence has been inserted in the Sudoku and Kakuro articles, but it is not explained there either. I propose to just mention the possibility in this article, and put the examples and explanation in the Sudoku and/or kakuro pages, as approrpiate. --Jorge Stolfi 11:39, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Send More Money alignment
The alignment using pre tags is off, for me (using firefox, linux). (see this screenshot at right, taken from this diff).

Is there a way to achieve this sum that displays consistently across browsers? I've tried looking at Help:Math, but couldn't prod the examples into working here... -- Quiddity (talk) 20:35, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

 * Does this work for you:
 * $$\begin{matrix}

&  & S & E & N & D \\ + &  & M & O & R & E \\ \hline = & M & O & N & E & Y \\ \end{matrix}$$
 * Gandalf61 (talk) 10:06, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The alignment looks fine but the italic font is not so good. I tried \texttt but the wikimath will not recognise it. What about just

S E N D     + M O R E    --- = M O N E Y
 * The frame is ugly but that is a problem in many articles. All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 13:06, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Gandalf's example is aligned perfectly, Jorge's example is the same as the old one (for me).
 * (I don't think any solution using  is going to work reliably cross-browser. This new example is aligned the same for me as my screenshot of the current (except for the underlining), and can be fixed (for me) with the same removal of 2 spaces from the "+ M O R E" line).
 * (I just checked, and I have not accidentally mis-set my monospace font in firefox prefs ;)
 * Hopefully Gandalf can fix the italic/font in his solution? -- Quiddity (talk) 20:31, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

 * Well, \text produces a non-italic font - how's this:
 * $$\begin{matrix}

&  & \text{S} & \text{E} & \text{N} & \text{D} \\ + &  & \text{M} & \text{O} & \text{R} & \text{E} \\ \hline = & \text{M} & \text{O} & \text{N} & \text{E} & \text{Y} \\ \end{matrix}$$
 * Gandalf61 (talk) 09:35, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Perfect. I'll add it now. Revert (or fix/improve) if there's a problem :)
 * Hopefully that works for everyone - I tried the various math-rendering options in Special:Preferences, and it seemed to display the same for me in all of them. -- Quiddity (talk) 21:06, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Logic issues in sample problem
Second step for solving sample puzzle in the article says: "To produce a carry from column 4 to column 5, S + M is at least 9, so S is 8 or 9, so S + M is 9 or 10, and so O is 0 or 1. But M = 1, so O = 0."

Last sentence is not really well explained, it should mention the fact that O≠M — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dlougach (talk • contribs) 12:32, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Extra answer
I figured out an extra way to solve this, suprised no-one has said this,

S=2,E=8,N=1,D=9,R=6,O=3,M=0, Y=7.

SEND+MORE = MONEY, 2819+0368=03187.

can someone confirm this at all? i am 17 btw :P, and it was fun to solve this, because son-one seems to say this way.
 * ) i don't have a wiki account, but my name is Peter :3

Usually in these sorts of problems 0 is not allowed as the first digit of a number, because that's not the way you would normally write it (you would write 368, not 0368). —David Eppstein (talk) 22:33, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Reverse
"Reverse cryptarithm: A rare variation where a formula is written and the solution is the corresponding cryptarithm whose solution is the formula given."

I have no idea what this means; a given arithmetic problem can be framed in millions of ways. No examples or references are given. A web search turned up nothing sensible. I suggest this be deleted unless someone can provide examples. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fomalhaut~enwiki (talk • contribs) 02:40, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Presumably it's harder to frame the problem using English words than using nonsense sequences of letters. But this whole section is unsourced and should be removed unless sources can be found. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:57, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Find the value of b in verbal arithmetic puzzle
A b +b 1.64.160.11 (talk) 08:15, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

 * solution please 1.64.160.11 (talk) 08:16, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Verbal arithmetic


text:
Bdale Garbee

Bdale Garbee is an American computer specialist who works with Linux, particularly Debian. He is also an amateur radio hobbyist (KB0G), and a member of AMSAT, Tucson Amateur Packet Radio (former vice-president), and the American Radio Relay League. As of 2023 he is the President of Amateur Radio Digital Communications.

Free software
Garbee has been a Debian developer since October 1994, the earliest days of the project. He set up the original developer machine (named master.debian.org) in 1995. He served as a Debian Project Leader (DPL) for one year (2002–2003), and served as chairman of the Debian Technical Committee.

Garbee has served on the board of directors of Software in the Public Interest, the non-profit organization that collects donations for Debian and many other Free software projects, since July 29, 2004, and was elected president on August 1, 2006.

Garbee was formerly on the board of directors of the Linux Foundation where he represented the interests of individual members and developers.

In September 2008, he received a "Lutèce d'Or" during the French event Paris Capitale du Libre as the FLOSS personality of the year.

In March 2011, Bdale Garbee agreed to join the FreedomBox Foundation's board of directors and chair its technical advisory committee.

He retired at the end of August 2012 from long service as the Open Source & Linux Chief Technologist at Hewlett-Packard. From September to December 2013 he was a part-time Senior Adviser to the Open Source Group at Samsung.

He was hired back by HP as Fellow in the Office of the CTO in 2014, with the goal to help driving HP's Open Source strategy. He retired for the second time in September 2016.

Personal
The name "Bdale" is an abbreviation of "Barksdale", given in honor of his maternal grandfather, Judge Alfred D. Barksdale.

At linux.conf.au 2009, Garbee's 27-year-old beard was removed by Linus Torvalds to raise funds for Tasmanian Devil facial tumour disease research. They raised between AU$35,000 and AU$40,000.

His house in Colorado was destroyed by the Black Forest Fire in June 2013.

title: Bdale Garbee


text:
Common iora

The common iora (Aegithina tiphia) is a small passerine bird found across the tropical Indian subcontinent and Southeast Asia, with populations showing plumage variations, some of which are designated as subspecies. A species found in scrub and forest, it is easily detected from its loud whistles and the bright colours. During the breeding season, males display by fluffing up their feathers and spiral in the air appearing like a green, black, yellow, and white ball.

Taxonomy
In 1747 the English naturalist George Edwards included an illustration and a description of the common iora in the second volume of his A Natural History of Uncommon Birds. He used the English name "The Green Indian Fly-Catcher". Edwards based his hand-coloured etching on a specimen that had been sent from Bengal to the silk-pattern designer and naturalist Joseph Dandridge in London. When in 1758 the Swedish naturalist Carl Linnaeus updated his Systema Naturae for the tenth edition, he placed the common iora in the genus Motacilla. Linnaeus included a brief description, coined the binomial name Motacilla tiphia and cited Edwards' work. The common iora is now placed in the genus Aegithina that was introduced in 1816 by the French ornithologist Louis Pierre Vieillot. The genus name Aegithina is from Ancient Greek aigithos or aiginthos, a mythical bird mentioned by Aristotle and other classical authors. The etymology of specific epithet tiphia is uncertain. It may be from the Ancient Greek tuphē, tiara, from Tiphys who in Greek mythology was the helmsman of the Argonauts.

Eleven subspecies are recognised:
 * A. t. multicolor (Gmelin, JF, 1789) – southwest India and Sri Lanka
 * A. t. deignani Hall, BP, 1957 – south, east India and north, central Myanmar
 * A. t. humei Baker, ECS, 1922 – central peninsular India
 * A. t. tiphia (Linnaeus, 1758) – north India to west Myanmar
 * A. t. septentrionalis Koelz, 1939 – northwest Himalayas
 * A. t. philipi Oustalet, 1886 – south-central China, east Myanmar, north Thailand and north, central Indochina
 * A. t. cambodiana Hall, BP, 1957 – southeast Thailand, Cambodia and south Vietnam
 * A. t. horizoptera Oberholser, 1912 – southeast Myanmar and southwest Thailand, Malay Peninsula, Sumatra and nearby islands
 * A. t. scapularis (Horsfield, 1821) – Java and Bali
 * A. t. viridis (Bonaparte, 1850) – central, south Borneo
 * A. t. aequanimis Bangs, 1922 – north Borneo and west Philippines

Description
Ioras have a pointed and notched beak with a culmen that is straight. The common iora is sexually dimorphic, males in the breeding season have a black cap and back adding to a black wing and tail at all seasons. Females have greenish wings and an olive tail. The undersides of both are yellow and the two white bars on the wings of the male are particularly prominent in their breeding plumage. The males in breeding plumage have a very variable distribution of the black on the upperparts and can be confused with Marshall's iora, however, the latter always has white tips to the tail. The nominate subspecies is found along the Himalayas and males of this population are very similar to females or have only a small amount of black on the crown. In northwestern India, septentrionalis is brighter yellow than others and in the northern plains of India humei males in breeding plumage have a black cap and olive on the upper mantle. In southwestern India and Sri Lanka multicolor has the breeding males with a jet black cap and mantle. The forms in the rest of southern India are intermediate between multicolor and humei with more grey-green on the rump (formerly considered as deignani but now used for the Burmese population). Several other populations across Southeast Asia are designated as subspecies including philipi of southern China and northern Thailand/Laos, deignani of Myanmar, horizoptera of southern Myanmar and the island chain of Sumatra, cambodiana of Cambodia, aeqanimis of Palawan and northern Borneo, viridis of Borneo and scapularis of Java and Bali.

Behaviour and ecology
Ioras forage in trees in small groups, gleaning among the branches for insects. They sometimes join mixed species feeding flocks. The call is a mixture of churrs, chattering and whistles, and the song is a trilled wheeeee-tee. They may sometimes imitate the calls of other birds such as drongos. During the breeding season, mainly after the monsoons, the male performs an acrobatic courtship display, darting up into the air fluffing up all his feathers, especially those on the pale green rump, then spiralling down to the original perch. Once he lands, he spreads his tail and droops his wings. Two to four greenish white eggs are laid in a small and compact cup-shaped nest made out of grass and bound with cobwebs and placed in the fork of a tree. Both male and female incubate and eggs hatch after about 14 days. Nests predators include snakes, lizards, crow-pheasant and crows. Nests may also be brood-parasitized by the banded bay cuckoo.

Ioras moult twice in a year and the plumage variation makes them somewhat complicated for plumage based separation of the populations.

A species of Haemoproteus, H. aethiginae, was described from a specimen of the common iora from Goa.

title: Common iora


text:
J. C. Nichols

Jesse Clyde "J. C." Nichols (August 23, 1880 - February 16, 1950) was an American developer of commercial and residential real estate in Kansas City, Missouri. Born in Olathe, Kansas, and a student at the University of Kansas and Harvard University, his most notable developments are the Country Club District and Country Club Plaza in Kansas City, which influenced suburban developments in other parts of the United States. He served leadership roles in local and national real estate organizations. Through these organizations, his ideas about real estate and planning helped to shape methods for racist and anti-Semitic restrictive covenants and zoning. His legacy has come under increasing scrutiny for these covenants, which prohibited Blacks, Jews, and other minorities from living in these neighborhoods.

Early life
Jesse Clyde Nichols was born in 1880, a son of farmers living near Olathe, Kansas. He worked various jobs while attending high school, and worked for a year after graduation selling wholesale meat. While he matriculated at the University of Kansas, he managed the college football team, reported for a newspaper, and served as class president. Graduating at the top of his class with a Bachelor of Arts degree in 1902, he accepted a one-year scholarship at Harvard University, and earned a second Bachelor of Arts degree there in 1903. Nichols returned to Kansas City and joined some college friends to establish Reed, Nichols & Company, operating as real estate developers. In 1905, he married Jessie Miller, a woman from Olathe, Kansas.

Subdivision development
Nichols called his method for establishing residential subdivisions "planning for permanence", for his objective was to "develop whole residential neighborhoods that would attract an element of people who desired a better way of life, a nicer place to live and would be willing to work in order to keep it better". His philosophy about subdivision planning greatly influenced other developments in the United States, including the Beverly Hills and Westwood neighborhoods of Los Angeles, Highland Park neighborhood of Dallas, and the River Oaks neighborhood in Houston, Texas.

Nichols advocated preservation of trees and natural contours, while proscribing gridiron street networks. His Country Club District in Kansas City placed many restrictions on the use of property within the subdivision, which Nichols believed made the lots more valuable to potential homeowners. His advertisements promoted permanence. All homeowners were required to belong to the Country Club District's homeowners association, which monitored how well homeowners maintained their lawns, but also provided services like garbage collection and street cleaning. Builders were required to observe large minimum lot sizes and large setbacks from the street. Nichols also imposed racially based covenants on all properties in the Country Club District.

The Country Club District, Nichols's master-planned community in Kansas City, Missouri, inspired River Oaks in Houston, Texas. Will Hogg, his brother Mike, and Hugh Potter visited the area and sought the advice of Nichols while they were planning River Oaks. Nichols had a short list of exemplary communities, and urged Potter to visit them. These included Forest Hill Gardens in Queens, New York; Palos Verdes Estates in Los Angeles County; Roland Park in Baltimore, Maryland; and Shaker Heights in Cleveland, Ohio. Potter eventually was appointed President of the River Oaks Corporation, and continued to seek the advice of Nichols during his tenure.

Innovations and leadership
Nichols originated the percentage lease, where rents are based on tenants' gross receipts. The percentage lease is now a standard practice in commercial leasing across the United States. Modern outdoor shopping centers, now common in the United States, share a common ancestor in the Country Club Plaza, which opened in Kansas City in 1923. The Urban Land Institute's J. C. Nichols Prize for Visionaries in Urban Development is named in his honor.

Nichols was a prominent civic booster in Kansas City, being involved in the creation of the Liberty Memorial, Nelson-Atkins Museum of Art, MRIGlobal, as well as the development of Kansas City University, now the University of Missouri-Kansas City.

Nichols served in leadership positions of local and national real estate and planning organizations. He was a member of the General Committee of the National Conference on City Planning. He headed the Kansas City Real Estate Board and the National Conference of Subdividers. He was a founder of the Urban Land Institute and chaired its Community Builders’ Council. He chaired the Home Builders and Subdividers Division of the National Association of Real Estate Boards (NAREB), chaired NAREB's War Service Board, and served as NAREB director.

Racist restrictions
J.C. Nichols relied on restrictive covenants to control the uses of the lands in the neighborhoods he developed. Most of the covenants restricted the lands to residential uses, and contained other features such as setback and free space requirements. However, homes in the Country Club District were restricted with covenants that prohibited blacks from owning or occupying the homes.; and likewise in his Johnson County, Kansas developments and against Jews also. Nichols did not invent the practice, but he used it to effectively bar ethnic minorities from living in his properties during the first half of the century. His restrictive covenant model was later adopted by the federal government to help implement similar policies in other regions of the United States. Ultimately, the 1948 Supreme Court decision Shelley v. Kraemer made such covenants unenforceable. Nevertheless, language referencing these covenants remained on the multitude of deed documents for decades after the Supreme Court decision because the relative difficulty of revising them one by one could be used covertly to continue existence of the covenants. The deed restrictions in most neighborhoods renew automatically every twenty to twenty-five years unless a majority of the homeowners agree to change them with notarized votes, about which fact publicity is assiduously avoided. In 2005, Missouri passed a law allowing (but not requiring) the governing bodies of homeowner's associations to delete restrictive covenants from deed restrictions without a vote of the members. The Country Club District is predominantly white, and it is among the wealthiest, most sought-after neighborhoods in the United States.

Legacy
Nichols's real estate policies created a racial and economic divide to split Kansas City in half along Troost Avenue for the indefinite future. This eventually crashed the home values on the east side where Blacks and Jews were allowed. When nationwide racial integration laws came in the 1960s, this total divide thwarted their adoption by Kansas City's public education system, and ensured that KCPS's racial population will remain mostly non-white.

In mass resentment of this legacy, intensified in 2020 by the George Floyd protests, Kansas City removed his name from the historic fountain and road in front of Country Club Plaza.

In 1970, members of the Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) were charged with pipe bombing places in Kansas City, including the home of his son Miller Nichols, then president of the J.C. Nichols company. Three SDS members were convicted.

Death
Nichols died of cancer on February 16, 1950, at his home at 1214 West 55th Street. He was buried at Forest Hill Calvary Cemetery in Kansas City. His home is on Ward Parkway in Kansas City.

title: J. C. Nichols


text:
User talk:Tram boy

Welcome to Wikipedia!

Thanks for helping add routes to List of Melbourne tram routes. If you can help out as well with the tram classes at Trams in Melbourne, Australia, that would be greatly appreciated. If you're interested in Melbourne's public transport beyond trams, the train stations need work (List of Melbourne railway stations, List of closed Melbourne railway stations), as does the List of Melbourne bus routes. Don't forget to check out the WikiProject Melbourne too! If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask me at my Talk page, or at the Village Pump. Have fun! Hypernovean 06:59, 24 May 2004 (UTC)

authors: Template namespace initialisation script

title: User talk:Tram boy