text:
Aerocar

Aerocar International's Aerocar (often called the Taylor Aerocar) was an American roadable aircraft designed and built by Moulton Taylor in Longview, Washington in 1949. Although six examples were made, it never entered large-scale production. It is considered one of the first practical flying cars.

Design and development
Taylor began designing a roadable aircraft in 1946. During a trip to Delaware, he met inventor Robert E. Fulton, Jr., who had designed an earlier roadable airplane, the Airphibian, with detachable wings. Taylor's prototype, the Aerocar, utilized folding wings that allowed the road vehicle to be converted into flight mode in five minutes by one person. When the rear license plate was flipped up, the operator could connect the propeller shaft and attach a pusher propeller. The same engine drove the front wheels through a three-speed manual transmission. When operated as an aircraft, the road transmission was left in neutral (though backing up during taxiing was possible by the using the reverse gear). On the road, the wings and tail unit were towed behind the vehicle. Taylor also put the propeller on the back of the car so it did not have to be removed when the Aerocar went on the road. Aerocars could drive up to 60 miles per hour and had a top airspeed of 110 miles per hour. An early-1950s "Industry on Parade" film shows Taylor driving and piloting his Aerocar, as well as footage of manufacture.

Testing and certification
The Civil Aeronautics Administration (CAA) granted the Aerocar civil certification in 1956, and Taylor reached a deal with Ling-Temco-Vought for serial production provided he could obtain 500 orders. When he was able to obtain only half that number, production plans ended. Only six examples were built. One is still flying as of 2008, and Taylor rebuilt another into the only Aerocar III.

Produced examples
There are four Aerocar I's, one Aerocar II, and one Aerocar I that was rebuilt as Aerocar III.

N4994P
N4994P (1949, originally N31214) is yellow with silver wings. It was the very first Aerocar and is on display at the EAA AirVenture Museum in Oshkosh, Wisconsin. It is maintained in flying condition but is not flown.

N101D
N101D (1954) is owned by Greg Herrick's Yellowstone Aviation Inc. It is maintained in flying condition and is on display at the Golden Wings Flying Museum located on the south west side of the Anoka County-Blaine Airport in Minneapolis. This aircraft is featured flying overhead on the cover on the book "A Drive In the Clouds" by Jake Schultz. In December 2011, N101D was being offered for sale at an asking price of USD1.25 million.

N102D
N102D (1960) is yellow and green. The last Aerocar built and the only one still flying, it is owned by Ed Sweeney and is on display at the Kissimmee Air Museum located at the Kissimmee Gateway Airport in Kissimmee, Florida. N102D was the only Aerocar built with the larger O-360 Lycoming powerplant giving it much better performance. It is the only road legal and driven Aerocar left. It is currently flown by the owner's son Sean Sweeney. It was previously owned by actor Bob Cummings, who used it in his TV sitcom The New Bob Cummings Show. It also appeared on the TV show James May's Big Ideas on BBC2, aired in September 2008. Inspired by this vehicle, Ed Sweeney began development of the Aerocar 2000.

N103D
N103D (1956) has been repainted to red/black with red wings. It has been owned by Carl Felling and Marilyn Stine of Grand Junction, Colorado since 1981. It once flew Fidel Castro's brother, Raúl Castro, in Cuba. The aircraft was damaged after landing on a rural road when a startled horse ran in front of the wing. A temporary fix was made using a flattened five-gallon can, and the aircraft made it to Boston without incident, for more comprehensive repairs

From 1961 to 1963 the Aerocar was operated under contract between Star Stations (Don Burden) and Wik's Air Service, Inc. It was used as a traffic-watch (AIRWATCH) aircraft for KISN (910AM) radio station in Portland, Oregon where it was flown by "Scotty Wright" (Scotty Wright was the alias used by the acting pilot of the Aerocar during traffic-watch transmissions). Several pilots provided the AIRWATCH service beginning with World War II veteran pilot Guilford Wikander, President of Wik's Air Service, Inc. Guilford was followed in order by his sister Ruth Wikander, W. John Jacob, Wayne Nutsch and Alan Maris. Scotty Wright reports Nutsch having 350 flying hours in N103D performing AIRWATCH duty. Traffic reporting was from 7:00 AM–8:30 AM and 4:30 PM–6:00 PM. During the Aerocar's AIRWATCH missions, it was painted white with red hearts and had the letters KISN on the top and bottom of the wings.

The aircraft was equipped with an emergency police/fire receiver for use in reporting emergency events on KISN radio stations broadcast. When flown for KISN it was based at Wik's Air Service, Hillsboro Airport (HIO), Hillsboro Oregon. On one of its more eventful flights for KISN it survived the Columbus Day Storm of 1962 without damage after its evening traffic reporting flight. W. John Jacob was piloting the aircraft at that particular time and should be credited with the successful landing during extreme wind conditions (perhaps more than 100 mph), but Ruth Wikander, who was in the aircraft to assist him, received the acclaim. Ruth Wikander was an active member of the 99's, the International Organization of Women Pilots. In 1962 Ruth Wikander drove the Aerocar as an automobile while trailering the wings in the annual Portland Rose Festival parade. The Aerocar was an integral part of KISN Radio along with photos of famous rock musicians and KISN DJ's of the times.

Last flown in 1977, the aircraft is no longer airworthy and has been in storage ever since. It is currently listed for sale for the price of US$2.2 million.

N107D (Aerocar II)
N107D (1966) is an Aerocar Aero-Plane, or Aerocar II. It is not a roadable aircraft but is based on the original Aerocar design. It uses the wing and tail section from the Aerocar. It seats four and is powered by a 150 hp IO-320 Lycoming engine. Only a single example was built. As of 2006, it was located in Colorado Springs, Colorado owned by Ed Sweeney, the owner of N102D.

N4345F (Aerocar III)
The sixth Aerocar (N4345F), Moulton Taylor's final flying car effort, is red with silver wings. It began as one of the original Aerocars, which Taylor bought back from a customer when it was damaged in an accident on the ground in the 1960s. Taylor rebuilt it as the Aerocar III, replacing the original cabin with a sleeker, more streamlined front-wheel drive version (although it still "fell far short" of the sporty lines Taylor wanted to give it [reference?] ). The automotive unit weighs 1,100 lbs and is powered by a 140 hp Lycoming O-320. The trailer wheels for the wings in towed configuration are deployable from a compartment on the outside of each wing's leading edge. The propeller driveshaft contains fine ball bearings that swing outward with centrifugal force, creating stiffness and damping. The four retractable wheels are extended for takeoff and landing, partly retracted for road travel, and fully retracted in flight. Taylor attracted some interest from Ford in the Aerocar III, but no production resulted. The single prototype is displayed at Seattle's Museum of Flight with the registration N100D.

title: Aerocar


text:
Talk:Picton, New Zealand

Untitled
I added the "New Zealand" because there's a Picton in Prince Edward County, Quinte's Isle, Ontario. Someone can do the "dab"! Robin Patterson 01:26, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The Hero - Sir Thomas Picton (a more balanced view beyond a positive spin for a new colony)
I have added the line "His connection to the slave trade and controversial governorship of Trinidad has resulted in calls for places named after him to be renamed." to reflect a more balanced view of this man and his deeds. The.Wiki.Enthusiast (talk) 10:25, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Picton was named after Sir Thomas Picton (read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Picton). The New Zealand town was named after Picton because he was the most senior person to die at the battle of Waterloo in 1815. Hero in this instance may simply mean the most posh person to die in a big battle.The.Wiki.Enthusiast (talk) 10:25, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Before Waterloo, Sir Picton was (in)famous for his treatment of slaves and non-whites during his governorship (1797–1803) of the slave colony of Trinidad (read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Trinidad_and_Tobago). As noted above, Picton was dragged back to the UK at the time to face trial for this mistreatment - but was acquitted on a technicality that Trinidad was not really under UK law at the time and therefore .. Picton could treat the non-whites as badly as he wanted. The fact that Picton was tried for cruelty to non-whites in a slave colony in a time when slavery and racism was part of the current climate may speak volumes about the type of man Picton was. The.Wiki.Enthusiast (talk) 10:25, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

I cannot seem to find the exact reason why New Zealand towns were being named after war heroes from wars many a year previously - but it must have been deemed important. Right? The Duke of Wellington and Lord Nelson (also Napoleonic war heroes) got New Zealand towns named Nelson and Wellington after them. Also the Duke of Marlborough's win at the Battle of Blenheim in the  War of the Spanish Succession (read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Blenheim)got the region Marlborough and town Blenheim named after that episode. Though this last one is 100 years previous to the Napoleonic wars, there does seem a need to display and remind everyone? of the colonial might of England, and wars or time frames were more or less irrelevant. Colonial positive spin and the Crown as the Conquerors might have been the game. Blenheim was originally called Beaver Town by the colonials. What was wrong with that? The.Wiki.Enthusiast (talk) 10:25, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Our Heros are Racists & Slavers - Do we need to point this out? Or is it just a 'fad'.
It was been suggested on two occasions on the history of this page that bringing a balanced perspective about Sir Picton's life as Picton also being an inhuman slaver and racist not just a soldier who died at the battle of Waterloo (read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sir_Thomas_Picton) is a media "fad" " .... Roger 8 Roger talk contribs 12,352 bytes +35 This is not really about the town's history, so I have moved it. Not sure if it warrants much more attention. It could be seen as a recent and short-term short term news fad..." and " Andrewgprout talk contribs 11,215 bytes -187 Reverted 1 edit by The.Wiki.Enthusiast (talk): I would wait to see if this has any long term significance - this is far from clear at the moment..."

I see the UN declaration of Human rights 1964 clearly challenges these - this human rights thing is all a fad point of view (read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_human_rights). Specifically ... Article 1. All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood. Article 4. No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.

I view these points of view suggesting human rights is a fad - are subversive and sinister in nature.The.Wiki.Enthusiast (talk) 10:52, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

 * This simply is not the correct page for this detail. This is dealt with properly on the Thomas Picton page. As suggested earlier, wait to see if disquiet about Picton's past leads to more detail being appropriate, as far as I can see the media interest of a few months ago was as suspected was brief and insignificant as far as this article is concerned. .Andrewgprout (talk) 15:19, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

 * A balanced perspective. Balanced detail. If details of Sir Picton's military history are notable (added to the Picton page in 2004 and unchanged)- why not his other deeds? What makes slavery, and racism not notable? In Pictons home county his behaviour as Governor of Trinidad is why this 'hero' status is now officially revoked - in Sir Pictons home county of wales Sir Picton's statue in the "Hall of Heroes" was described by the council as an 'affront to black people" and has now been removed, read: https://news.sky.com/story/statue-of-welsh-slave-trader-sir-thomas-picton-boarded-up-in-cardiff-12035408).
 * Fad Media Interest. What I THINK you mean to argue is that - Sir Pictons slavery and racsit behaviours are not important cuase they not in the media (for long and thus a fad issue). Is that correct? If it is ... arguing that a topic is not in the media is not an argument for exclusion or inclusion in Wikipedia. If it was a small seaside town at the top of the south island of New Zealand - wouldn't even have a Wikipedia page. Slavery and Racism are a major issue (see Human Rights refs above) Please present a better-framed argument. Let's discuss and get this balance right. The.Wiki.Enthusiast (talk) 21:21, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

 * It isn't necessary to go into detail about the life of Thomas Picton in this article. The detail belongs in the article on him. It's appropriate to mention the controversy that the town name implicitly honours a person connected to the slave trade, and this is done adequately. If an active campaign develops to rename the town, we should cover that, but at present such a campaign doesn't appear to have continued since June.- gadfium 23:11, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

 * I do not intend wasting too much time on this. You obviously don't get it and I don't think anything said here will convince you otherwise. The best I can suggest is that you devote many hours on wikipedia, without editing, to see how it works and then you might hopefully also gain a modicum of understanding about basic academic principals than underlie wiki articles. Once again, this article is about the town, not Sir Thomas (not Sir Picton). Here is a couple of wiki principles to get you started. Attack the argument, not the editor, and keep it civil; when your edit is reversed with reasons given, you take to talk and get consensus before putting it back. Do not edit war. And whatever you do, do not assume that someone is wrong just because you do not understand their reasoning or the understand subject in question. In this case you are doing both. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 23:31, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

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

title: Talk:Picton, New Zealand


text:
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/Episode coverage task force

Where do I ask: Why isn't there a list of 60 Minutes
Is this the right place to ask: "Why isn't there a list of 60 Minutes episodes?

--CmdrDan (talk) 23:49, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Categorizing redirects of episodes
Does anyone have any thoughts about the categorization of episode redirects in both a "Foo episodes" category and its "Foo episode redirects to lists" category? Category:Scrubs (TV series) episodes (subcategorized by season even) and Category:New Girl episodes seem to do that and I don't see many others that do. I figure a lot of this is just from the time 15 or so years ago when editors were trying to make articles for every episode of shows back then, and now they're all redirects. Thanks. Star cheers peaks news lost wars Talk to me 23:16, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Proposal regarding season article naming
There is a proposal to change the naming conventions of TV season articles from the current practice of  to   or. As such a change would affect a substantial number of articles, you are invited to participate in the discussion at . Thank you. InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:20, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Update: Please see . Thanks. InfiniteNexus (talk) 23:18, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Create Category "Television episodes directed by Adam Bernstein".
Adam Bernstein has directed several tv episodes. And he directed about 22 tv episodes that have their own wikipedia pages. Such as several episodes of Breaking Bad, Better Call Saul, 30 Rock, Scrubs, etc. If a category like "Television episodes directed by David Chase" (which only has 2 entries) can exist, why not one for Adam Bernstein? Heres The List: 1. Scrubs: My First Day (2001) 2. Scrubs: My Life In Four Cameras (2005) 3. 30 Rock: Pilot (2006) 4. 30 Rock: The Aftermath (2006) 5. 30 Rock: Blind Date (2006) 6. 30 Rock: Tracy Does Conan (2006) 7. 30 Rock: The C Word (2007) 8. Breaking Bad: Cat’s In The Bag… (2008) 9. Breaking Bad: …And The Bag’s In The River (2008) 10. Breaking Bad: Mandala (2009) 11. Breaking Bad: ABQ (2009) 12. Breaking Bad: Caballo sin Nombre (2010) 13. Breaking Bad: Half Measures (2010) 14. Breaking Bad: Box Cutter (2011) 15. Breaking Bad: Hazard Pay (2012) 16. Smash: Understudy (2012) 17. Fargo: The Crocodile's Dilemma (2014) 18. Fargo: The Rooster Prince (2014) 19. Better Call Saul: Five-O (2015) 20. Better Call Saul: Gloves Off (2016) 21. Better Call Saul: Slip (2017) 22. Better Call Saul: Winner (2018) MrCboY1997 (talk) 23:19, 20 November 2023 (UTC)


text:
Template talk:History of Chile

What a useless series box. It's just a group of six random events that have happened in the history of Chile. - SimonP 01:27, Jul 23, 2004 (UTC)

 * Don't screw up other people's work --Cantus 02:41, Jul 23, 2004 (UTC)

 * Please say why this template is useful, rather than simply reverting. - SimonP 17:48, Sep 6, 2004 (UTC)

 * Why I think this template should not currently be used:
 * The history of other countries use series boxes only as lists of major epochs, a list of random events will confuse readers.
 * A random collection of events such as this is better handled by categories
 * It is missing many important events, some which we have articles for e.g. the 1891 Chilean Civil War, or 1989 Chilean presidential election and many we do not, such as every other election in Chilean history. Currently it is very Amerocentric as it contains almost only events with American involvement.
 * However, if we were to add all of the other articles and potential articles to the template it would become unwieldy and garish. Imagine if we were to add a similar template to every topic related to the France.
 * Rather we should wait until the history of Chile article gets large enough so that it can be subdivided into a series of eras.
 * - SimonP 03:42, Sep 8, 2004 (UTC)

title: Template talk:History of Chile


text:
Aero Car (1919 automobile)

The Aero Car (also known as Aerocar) was a flat twin-engine cyclecar manufactured from 1919 to 1920 by the Aero Car Engineering Company in Clapton, London, United Kingdom.

History
The Aero Car was manufactured from 1919 to 1920 Clapton, London, United Kingdom, by the Aero Car Engineering Company.

Specifications
The Aero Car was a cyclecar with 5/7 hp (533 W) flat twin-engine cyclecar. The engine was an air-cooled flat-twin built by Blackburne and the gearbox was a Sturmey-Archer. The body had a bullnose radiator and a pointed tail.

title: Aero Car (1919 automobile)


text:
Black hole information paradox

The black hole information paradox is a paradox that appears when the predictions of quantum mechanics and general relativity are combined. The theory of general relativity predicts the existence of black holes that are regions of spacetime from which nothing—not even light—can escape. In the 1970s, Stephen Hawking applied the semiclassical approach of quantum field theory in curved spacetime to such systems and found that an isolated black hole would emit a form of radiation (now called Hawking radiation in his honor). He also argued that the detailed form of the radiation would be independent of the initial state of the black hole, and depend only on its mass, electric charge and angular momentum.

The information paradox appears when one considers a process in which a black hole is formed through a physical process and then evaporates away entirely through Hawking radiation. Hawking's calculation suggests that the final state of radiation would retain information only about the total mass, electric charge and angular momentum of the initial state. Since many different states can have the same mass, charge and angular momentum, this suggests that many initial physical states could evolve into the same final state. Therefore, information about the details of the initial state would be permanently lost; however, this violates a core precept of both classical and quantum physics: that, in principle only, the state of a system at one point in time should determine its state at any other time. Specifically, in quantum mechanics the state of the system is encoded by its wave function. The evolution of the wave function is determined by a unitary operator, and unitarity implies that the wave function at any instant of time can be used to determine the wave function either in the past or the future. In 1993, Don Page argued that if a black hole starts in a pure quantum state and evaporates completely by a unitary process, the von Neumann entropy of the Hawking radiation initially increases and then decreases back to zero when the black hole has disappeared. This is called the Page curve.

It is now generally believed that information is preserved in black-hole evaporation. For many researchers, deriving the Page curve is synonymous with solving the black hole information puzzle. But views differ as to precisely how Hawking's original semiclassical calculation should be corrected. In recent years, several extensions of the original paradox have been explored. Taken together, these puzzles about black hole evaporation have implications for how gravity and quantum mechanics must be combined. The information paradox remains an active field of research in quantum gravity.

Relevant principles
In quantum mechanics, the evolution of the state is governed by the Schrödinger equation. The Schrödinger equation obeys two principles that are relevant to the paradox—quantum determinism, which means that given a present wave function, its future changes are uniquely determined by the evolution operator, and reversibility, which refers to the fact that the evolution operator has an inverse, meaning that the past wave functions are similarly unique. The combination of the two means that information must always be preserved. In this context "information" means all the details of the state, and the statement that information must be preserved means that details corresponding to an earlier time can always be reconstructed at a later time.

Mathematically, the Schrödinger equation implies that the wavefunction at a time t1 can be related to the wavefunction at a time t2 by means of a unitary operator. $$ |\Psi(t_1)\rangle = U(t_1, t_2)|\Psi(t_2)\rangle.$$ Since the unitary operator is bijective, the wavefunction at t2 can be obtained from the wavefunction at t1 and vice versa.

The reversibility of time evolution described above applies only at the microscopic level, since the wavefunction provides a complete description of the state. It should not be conflated with thermodynamic irreversibility. A process may appear irreversible if one keeps track only of the system's coarse-grained features and not of its microscopic details, as is usually done in thermodynamics. But at the microscopic level, the principles of quantum mechanics imply that every process is completely reversible.

Starting in the mid-1970s, Stephen Hawking and Jacob Bekenstein put forward theoretical arguments that suggested that black-hole evaporation loses information, and is therefore inconsistent with unitarity. Crucially, these arguments were meant to apply at the microscopic level and suggested that black-hole evaporation is not only thermodynamically but microscopically irreversible. This contradicts the principle of unitarity described above and leads to the information paradox. Since the paradox suggested that quantum mechanics would be violated by black-hole formation and evaporation, Hawking framed the paradox in terms of the "breakdown of predictability in gravitational collapse".

The arguments for microscopic irreversibility were backed by Hawking's calculation of the spectrum of radiation that isolated black holes emit. This calculation utilized the framework of general relativity and quantum field theory. The calculation of Hawking radiation is performed at the black hole horizon and does not account for the backreaction of spacetime geometry; for a large enough black hole the curvature at the horizon is small and therefore both these theories should be valid. Hawking relied on the no-hair theorem to arrive at the conclusion that radiation emitted by black holes would depend only on a few macroscopic parameters, such as the black hole's mass, charge, and spin, but not on the details of the initial state that led to the formation of the black hole. In addition, the argument for information loss relied on the causal structure of the black hole spacetime, which suggests that information in the interior should not affect any observation in the exterior, including observations performed on the radiation the black hole emits. If so, the region of spacetime outside the black hole would lose information about the state of the interior after black-hole evaporation, leading to the loss of information.

Today, some physicists believe that the holographic principle (specifically the AdS/CFT duality) demonstrates that Hawking's conclusion was incorrect, and that information is in fact preserved. Moreover, recent analyses indicate that in semiclassical gravity the information loss paradox cannot be formulated in a self-consistent manner due to the impossibility of simultaneously realizing all of the necessary assumptions required for its formulation.

Hawking radiation
In 1973–1975, Stephen Hawking showed that black holes should slowly radiate away energy, and he later argued that this leads to a contradiction with unitarity. Hawking used the classical no-hair theorem to argue that the form of this radiation—called Hawking radiation—would be completely independent of the initial state of the star or matter that collapsed to form the black hole. He argued that the process of radiation would continue until the black hole had evaporated completely. At the end of this process, all the initial energy in the black hole would have been transferred to the radiation. But, according to Hawking's argument, the radiation would retain no information about the initial state and therefore information about the initial state would be lost.

More specifically, Hawking argued that the pattern of radiation emitted from the black hole would be random, with a probability distribution controlled only by the black hole's initial temperature, charge, and angular momentum, not by the initial state of the collapse. The state produced by such a probabilistic process is called a mixed state in quantum mechanics. Therefore, Hawking argued that if the star or material that collapsed to form the black hole started in a specific pure quantum state, the process of evaporation would transform the pure state into a mixed state. This is inconsistent with the unitarity of quantum-mechanical evolution discussed above.

The loss of information can be quantified in terms of the change in the fine-grained von Neumann entropy of the state. A pure state is assigned a von Neumann entropy of 0, whereas a mixed state has a finite entropy. The unitary evolution of a state according to Schrödinger's equation preserves the entropy. Therefore Hawking's argument suggests that the process of black-hole evaporation cannot be described within the framework of unitary evolution. Although this paradox is often phrased in terms of quantum mechanics, the evolution from a pure state to a mixed state is also inconsistent with Liouville's theorem in classical physics (see e.g. ).

In equations, Hawking showed that if one denotes the creation and annihilation operators at a frequency $$\omega$$ for a quantum field propagating in the black-hole background by $$a_{\omega}$$ and $$a_{\omega}^{\dagger}$$ then the expectation value of the product of these operators in the state formed by the collapse of a black hole would satisfy $$ \langle a_{\omega} a_{\omega}^{\dagger} \rangle_{\rm hawk} = {1 \over 1 - e^{-\omega /{kT} }} $$ where $k$ is the Boltzmann constant and $T$ is the temperature of the black hole. (See, for example, section 2.2 of. ) This formula has two important aspects. The first is that the form of the radiation depends only on a single parameter, temperature, even though the initial state of the black hole cannot be characterized by one parameter. Second, the formula implies that the black hole radiates mass at a rate given by $$ {d M \over d t} = -{a T^4}$$ where $a$ is constant related to fundamental constants, including the Stefan–Boltzmann constant and certain properties of the black hole spacetime called its greybody factors.

The temperature of the black hole is in turn dependent on its mass, charge, and angular momentum. For a Schwarzschild black hole the temperature is given by $$ T = {\hbar c^3 \over 8 \pi k G M} $$ This means that if the black hole starts out with an initial mass $$M_0$$, it evaporates completely in a time proportional to $$M_0^3$$.

The important aspect of these formulas is that they suggest that the final gas of radiation formed through this process depends only on the black hole's temperature and is independent of other details of the initial state. This leads to the following paradox. Consider two distinct initial states that collapse to form a Schwarzschild black hole of the same mass. Even though the states were distinct at first, since the mass (and hence the temperature) of the black holes is the same, they will emit the same Hawking radiation. Once they evaporate completely, in both cases, one will be left with a featureless gas of radiation. This gas cannot be used to distinguish between the two initial states, and therefore information has been lost.

Page curve
During the same time period in the 1970s, Don Page was a doctoral student of Stephen Hawking. He objected to Hawking's reasoning leading to the paradox above, initially on the basis of violation of CPT symmetry. In 1993, Page focused on the combined system of a black hole with its Hawking radiation as one entangled system, a bipartite system, evolving over the lifetime of the black hole evaporation. Lacking the ability to make a full quantum analysis, he nonetheless made a powerful observation: If a black hole starts in a pure quantum state and evaporates completely by a unitary process, the von Neumann entropy or entanglement entropy of the Hawking radiation initially increases from zero and then must decrease back to zero when the black hole to which the radiation is entangled has totally evaporated. This is known as the Page curve; and the time corresponding to the maximum or turnover point of the curve, which occurs at about half the black-hole lifetime, is called the Page time. In short, if black hole evaporation is unitary, then the radiation entanglement entropy follows the Page curve. After the Page time, correlations appear and the radiation becomes increasingly information rich.

Recent progress in deriving the Page curve for unitary black hole evaporation is a significant step towards finding both a resolution to the information paradox and a more general understanding of unitarity in quantum gravity. Many researchers consider deriving the Page curve as synonymous with solving the black hole information paradox.

Popular culture
The information paradox has received coverage in the popular media and has been described in popular-science books. Some of this coverage resulted from a widely publicized bet made in 1997 between John Preskill on the one hand with Hawking and Kip Thorne on the other that information was not lost in black holes. The scientific debate on the paradox was described in Leonard Susskind's 2008 book The Black Hole War. (The book carefully notes that the 'war' was purely a scientific one, and that, at a personal level, the participants remained friends. ) Susskind writes that Hawking was eventually persuaded that black-hole evaporation was unitary by the holographic principle, which was first proposed by 't Hooft, further developed by Susskind, and later given a precise string theory interpretation by the AdS/CFT correspondence. In 2004, Hawking also conceded the 1997 bet, paying Preskill with a baseball encyclopedia "from which information can be retrieved at will". Thorne refused to concede.

Solutions
Since the 1997 proposal of the AdS/CFT correspondence, the predominant belief among physicists is that information is indeed preserved in black hole evaporation. There are broadly two main streams of thought about how this happens. Within what might broadly be termed the "string theory community", the dominant idea is that Hawking radiation is not precisely thermal but receives quantum correlations that encode information about the black hole's interior. This viewpoint has been the subject of extensive recent research and received further support in 2019 when researchers amended the computation of the entropy of the Hawking radiation in certain models and showed that the radiation is in fact dual to the black hole interior at late times. Hawking himself was influenced by this view and in 2004 published a paper that assumed the AdS/CFT correspondence and argued that quantum perturbations of the event horizon could allow information to escape from a black hole, which would resolve the information paradox. In this perspective, it is the event horizon of the black hole that is important and not the black-hole singularity. The GISR (Gravity Induced Spontaneous Radiation) mechanism of references can be considered an implementation of this idea but with the quantum perturbations of the event horizon replaced by the microscopic states of the black hole.

On the other hand, within what might broadly be termed the "loop quantum gravity community", the dominant belief is that to resolve the information paradox, it is important to understand how the black-hole singularity is resolved. These scenarios are broadly called remnant scenarios since information does not emerge gradually but remains in the black-hole interior only to emerge at the end of black-hole evaporation.

Researchers also study other possibilities, including a modification of the laws of quantum mechanics to allow for non-unitary time evolution.

Some of these solutions are described at greater length below.

GISR mechanism resolution to the paradox
This resolution takes GISR as the underlying mechanism for Hawking radiation, considering the latter only as a resultant effect. The physics ingredients of GISR are reflected in the following explicitly hermitian hamiltonian

$$\begin{align} H &= \begin{pmatrix}w^i\\&w_{-}^{j}\\&&\ddots\\&&&{\scriptstyle\it0}^{\scriptscriptstyle\it1}\end{pmatrix} + \sum_q\hbar\omega_qa^\dagger_qa_q + \sum_{u,v}^{|u-v|=\hbar\omega_q}g_{u^n v^\ell}b^\dagger_{u^n v^\ell}a_q \\ g_{u\;\!\!^n v^\ell} &\propto -\frac{\hbar}{G\{M_u,M_v\}^\mathrm{max}}\mathrm{Siml}\{\Psi[M_{u\;\!\!^n}\!(r)],\Psi[M_{v\;\!\!^\ell}\!(r)]\} \end{align}$$

The first term of $$H$$ is a diagonal matrix representing the microscopic state of black holes no heavier than the initial one. The second term describes vacuum fluctuations of particles around the black hole and is represented by many harmonic oscillators. The third term couples the vacuum fluctuation modes to the black hole, such that for each mode whose energy matches the difference between two states of the black hole, the latter transitions with an amplitude proportional to the similarity factor of their microscopic wave functions. Transitions between higher energy state $$u$$ to lower energy state $$v$$ and vice versa, are equally permitted at the Hamiltonian level. This coupling mimics the photon-atom coupling in the Jaynes–Cummings model of atomic physics, replacing the photon's vector potential with the binding energy of particles to be radiated in the black hole case, and the dipole moment of initial-to-final state transitions in atoms with the similarity factor of the initial and final states' wave functions in black holes. Despite its ad hoc nature, this coupling introduces no new interactions beyond gravity, and it is deemed necessary irrespective of the future development of quantum gravitational theories.

From the hamiltonian of GISR and the standard Schrodinger equation controlling the evolution of wave function of the system

$$|\psi(t)\rangle=\sum_{u=w}^0\sum_{n=1}^{u}\sum_{\omega{}s}^{\omega+u=w} e^{-iut-i\omega{}t}c_{u\;\!\!^n}^{\omega{}s}(t)|u\;\!\!^n\otimes\omega{}s\rangle $$

$$i\hbar{\partial}_t|\psi(t)\rangle = H|\psi(t)\rangle$$

here $$\omega{}s$$ is the index of the radiated particles set with total energy $$\omega$$. In the case of short time evolution or single quantum emission, Wigner-Wiesskopf approximation allows one to show that the power spectrum of GISR is exactly of thermal type and the corresponding temperature equals that of Hawking radiation. However, in the case of long time evolution or continuous quantum emission, the process is off-equilibrium and is characterised by an initial state dependent black hole mass or temperature vs. time curve. The observers far away can retrieve the information stored in the initial black hole from this mass or temperature versus time curve.

The hamiltonian and wave function description of GISR allows one to calculate the entanglement entropy between the black hole and its Hawking particles explicitly.

$$s_{BR} = -\operatorname{tr}_{B}\rho_{B}\log\rho_{B}=-tr_{R} \rho_{R}\log\rho_{R}$$

$$ \rho_{B} = \operatorname{tr}_{R}\sum_{u=w}^0\sum_{n=1}^{u}\sum_{\omega{}s}^{\omega+u=w}|c_{u^n}^{\omega{}s}\rangle\langle c_{u^n}^{\omega{}s}| $$

$$ \rho_{R} = \operatorname{tr}_{B}\sum_{u=w}^0\sum_{n=1}^{u}\sum_{\omega{}s}^{\omega+u=w}|c_{u^n}^{\omega{}s}\rangle\langle c_{u^n}^{\omega{}s}| $$

Since the Hamiltonian of GISR is explicitly Hermitian, the resulting Page curve is naturally expected, except for some late-time Rabi-type oscillations. These oscillations arise from the equal probability of emission and absorption transitions as the black hole approaches the vanishing stage. The most important lesson from this calculation is that the intermediate state of an evaporating black hole cannot be considered a semiclassical object with a time-dependent mass. Instead, it must be viewed as a superposition of many different mass ratio combinations of the black hole and Hawking particles. References designed a Schrödinger cat-type thought experiment to illustrate this fact, where an initial black hole is bounded with a group of living cats and each Hawking particle kills on from the group. In the quantum description, because the exact timing and number of particles radiated by a black hole cannot be determined definitively, the intermediate state of the evaporating black hole must be considered a superposition of many cat groups, each with a different ratio of dead members. The biggest flaw in the argument for the information loss paradox is ignoring this superposition.

Small-corrections resolution to the paradox
This idea suggests that Hawking's computation fails to keep track of small corrections that are eventually sufficient to preserve information about the initial state. This can be thought of as analogous to what happens during the mundane process of "burning": the radiation produced appears to be thermal, but its fine-grained features encode the precise details of the object that was burnt. This idea is consistent with reversibility, as required by quantum mechanics. It is the dominant idea in what might broadly be termed the string-theory approach to quantum gravity.

More precisely, this line of resolution suggests that Hawking's computation is corrected so that the two point correlator computed by Hawking and described above becomes $$ \langle a_{\omega} a_{\omega}^{\dagger} \rangle_{\rm exact} = \langle a_{\omega} a_{\omega}^{\dagger} \rangle_{\rm hawk} (1 + \epsilon_2) $$ and higher-point correlators are similarly corrected $$ \langle a_{\omega_1} a_{\omega_1}^{\dagger} a_{\omega_2} a_{\omega_2}^{\dagger} \ldots a_{\omega_n} a_{\omega_n}^{\dagger} \rangle_{\rm exact} = \langle a_{\omega} a_{\omega}^{\dagger} \rangle_{\rm hawk} (1 + \epsilon_n) $$ The equations above utilize a concise notation and the correction factors $$\epsilon_i$$ may depend on the temperature, the frequencies of the operators that enter the correlation function and other details of the black hole.

Maldacena initially explored such corrections in a simple version of the paradox. They were then analyzed by Papadodimas and Raju, who showed that corrections to low-point correlators (such as $$\epsilon_2$$ above ) that were exponentially suppressed in the black-hole entropy were sufficient to preserve unitarity, and significant corrections were required only for very high-point correlators. The mechanism that allowed the right small corrections to form was initially postulated in terms of a loss of exact locality in quantum gravity so that the black-hole interior and the radiation were described by the same degrees of freedom. Recent developments suggest that such a mechanism can be realized precisely within semiclassical gravity and allows information to escape. See § Recent developments.

Fuzzball resolution to the paradox
Some researchers, most notably Samir Mathur, have argued that the small corrections required to preserve information cannot be obtained while preserving the semiclassical form of the black-hole interior and instead require a modification of the black-hole geometry to a fuzzball.

The defining characteristic of the fuzzball is that it has structure at the horizon scale. This should be contrasted with the conventional picture of the black-hole interior as a largely featureless region of space. For a large enough black hole, tidal effects are very small at the black-hole horizon and remain small in the interior until one approaches the black-hole singularity. Therefore, in the conventional picture, an observer who crosses the horizon may not even realize they have done so until they start approaching the singularity. In contrast, the fuzzball proposal suggests that the black hole horizon is not empty. Consequently, it is also not information-free, since the details of the structure at the surface of the horizon preserve information about the black hole's initial state. This structure also affects the outgoing Hawking radiation and thereby allows information to escape from the fuzzball.

The fuzzball proposal is supported by the existence of a large number of gravitational solutions called microstate geometries.

The firewall proposal can be thought of as a variant of the fuzzball proposal that posits that the black-hole interior is replaced by a firewall rather than a fuzzball. Operationally, the difference between the fuzzball and the firewall proposals has to do with whether an observer crossing the horizon of the black hole encounters high-energy matter, suggested by the firewall proposal, or merely low-energy structure, suggested by the fuzzball proposal. The firewall proposal also originated with an exploration of Mathur's argument that small corrections are insufficient to resolve the information paradox.

The fuzzball and firewall proposals have been questioned for lacking an appropriate mechanism that can generate structure at the horizon scale.

Strong-quantum-effects resolution to the paradox
In the final stages of black-hole evaporation, quantum effects become important and cannot be ignored. The precise understanding of this phase of black-hole evaporation requires a complete theory of quantum gravity. Within what might be termed the loop-quantum-gravity approach to black holes, it is believed that understanding this phase of evaporation is crucial to resolving the information paradox.

This perspective holds that Hawking's computation is reliable until the final stages of black-hole evaporation, when information suddenly escapes. Another possibility along the same lines is that black-hole evaporation simply stops when the black hole becomes Planck-sized. Such scenarios are called "remnant scenarios".

An appealing aspect of this perspective is that a significant deviation from classical and semiclassical gravity is needed only in the regime in which the effects of quantum gravity are expected to dominate. On the other hand, this idea implies that just before the sudden escape of information, a very small black hole must be able to store an arbitrary amount of information and have a very large number of internal states. Therefore, researchers who follow this idea must take care to avoid the common criticism of remnant-type scenarios, which is that they might may violate the Bekenstein bound and lead to a violation of effective field theory due to the production of remnants as virtual particles in ordinary scattering events.

Soft-hair resolution to the paradox
In 2016, Hawking, Perry and Strominger noted that black holes must contain "soft hair". Particles that have no rest mass, like photons and gravitons, can exist with arbitrarily low-energy and are called soft particles. The soft-hair resolution posits that information about the initial state is stored in such soft particles. The existence of such soft hair is a peculiarity of four-dimensional asymptotically flat space and therefore this resolution to the paradox does not carry over to black holes in Anti-de Sitter space or black holes in other dimensions.

Information is irretrievably lost
A minority view in the theoretical physics community is that information is genuinely lost when black holes form and evaporate. This conclusion follows if one assumes that the predictions of semiclassical gravity and the causal structure of the black-hole spacetime are exact.

But this conclusion leads to the loss of unitarity. Banks, Susskind and Peskin argue that, in some cases, loss of unitarity also implies violation of energy–momentum conservation or locality, but this argument may possibly be evaded in systems with a large number of degrees of freedom. According to Roger Penrose, loss of unitarity in quantum systems is not a problem: quantum measurements are by themselves already non-unitary. Penrose claims that quantum systems will in fact no longer evolve unitarily as soon as gravitation comes into play, precisely as in black holes. The Conformal Cyclic Cosmology Penrose advocates critically depends on the condition that information is in fact lost in black holes. This new cosmological model might be tested experimentally by detailed analysis of the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMB): if true, the CMB should exhibit circular patterns with slightly lower or slightly higher temperatures. In November 2010, Penrose and V. G. Gurzadyan announced they had found evidence of such circular patterns in data from the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP), corroborated by data from the BOOMERanG experiment. The significance of these findings was debated.

Along similar lines, Modak, Ortíz, Peña, and Sudarsky have argued that the paradox can be dissolved by invoking foundational issues of quantum theory often called the measurement problem of quantum mechanics. This work built on an earlier proposal by Okon and Sudarsky on the benefits of objective collapse theory in a much broader context. The original motivation of these studies was Penrose's long-standing proposal wherein collapse of the wave-function is said to be inevitable in the presence of black holes (and even under the influence of gravitational field). Experimental verification of collapse theories is an ongoing effort.

Other proposed resolutions
Some other resolutions to the paradox have also been explored. These are listed briefly below.

 * Information is stored in a large remnant This idea suggests that Hawking radiation stops before the black hole reaches the Planck size. Since the black hole never evaporates, information about its initial state can remain inside the black hole and the paradox disappears. But there is no accepted mechanism that would allow Hawking radiation to stop while the black hole remains macroscopic.
 * Information is stored in a baby universe that separates from our own universe. Some models of gravity, such as the Einstein–Cartan theory of gravity, which extends general relativity to matter with intrinsic angular momentum (spin), predict the formation of such baby universes. No violation of known general principles of physics is needed. There are no physical constraints on the number of the universes, even though only one remains observable.The Einstein–Cartan theory is difficult to test because its predictions are significantly different from general-relativistic ones only at extremely high densities.
 * Information is encoded in the correlations between future and past The final-state proposal suggests that boundary conditions must be imposed at the black-hole singularity, which, from a causal perspective, is to the future of all events in the black-hole interior. This helps reconcile black-hole evaporation with unitarity but contradicts the intuitive idea of causality and locality of time-evolution.
 * Quantum-channel theoryIn 2014, Chris Adami argued that analysis using quantum channel theory causes any apparent paradox to disappear; Adami rejects black hole complementarity, arguing instead that no space-like surface contains duplicated quantum information.

Recent developments
Significant progress was made in 2019, when, starting with work by Penington and Almheiri, Engelhardt, Marolf and Maxfield, researchers were able to compute the von Neumann entropy of the radiation black holes emit in specific models of quantum gravity. These calculations showed that, in these models, the entropy of this radiation first rises and then falls back to zero. As explained above, one way to frame the information paradox is that Hawking's calculation appears to show that the von Neumann entropy of Hawking radiation increases throughout the lifetime of the black hole. But if the black hole formed from a pure state with zero entropy, unitarity implies that the entropy of the Hawking radiation must decrease back to zero once the black hole evaporates completely, i.e., the Page curve. Therefore, the results above provide a resolution to the information paradox, at least in the specific models of gravity considered in these models.

These calculations compute the entropy by first analytically continuing the spacetime to a Euclidean spacetime and then using the replica trick. The path integral that computes the entropy receives contributions from novel Euclidean configurations called "replica wormholes". (These wormholes exist in a Wick rotated spacetime and should not be conflated with wormholes in the original spacetime.) The inclusion of these wormhole geometries in the computation prevents the entropy from increasing indefinitely.

These calculations also imply that for sufficiently old black holes, one can perform operations on the Hawking radiation that affect the black hole interior. This result has implications for the related firewall paradox, and provides evidence for the physical picture suggested by the ER=EPR proposal, black hole complementarity, and the Papadodimas–Raju proposal.

It has been noted that the models used to perform the Page curve computations above have consistently involved theories where the graviton has mass, unlike the real world, where the graviton is massless. These models have also involved a "nongravitational bath", which can be thought of as an artificial interface where gravity ceases to act. It has also been argued that a key technique used in the Page-curve computations, the "island proposal", is inconsistent in standard theories of gravity with a Gauss law. This would suggest that the Page curve computations are inapplicable to realistic black holes and work only in special toy models of gravity. The validity of these criticisms remains under investigation; there is no consensus in the research community.

In 2020, Laddha, Prabhu, Raju, and Shrivastava argued that, as a result of the effects of quantum gravity, information should always be available outside the black hole. This would imply that the von Neumann entropy of the region outside the black hole always remains zero, as opposed to the proposal above, where the von Neumann entropy first rises and then falls. Extending this, Raju argued that Hawking's error was to assume that the region outside the black hole would have no information about its interior.

Hawking formalized this assumption in terms of a "principle of ignorance". The principle of ignorance is correct in classical gravity, when quantum-mechanical effects are neglected, by virtue of the no-hair theorem. It is also correct when only quantum-mechanical effects are considered and gravitational effects are neglected. But Raju argued that when both quantum mechanical and gravitational effects are accounted for, the principle of ignorance should be replaced by a "principle of holography of information" that would imply just the opposite: all the information about the interior can be regained from the exterior through suitably precise measurements.

The two recent resolutions of the information paradox described above—via replica wormholes and the holography of information—share the feature that observables in the black-hole interior also describe observables far from the black hole. This implies a loss of exact locality in quantum gravity. Although this loss of locality is very small, it persists over large distance scales. This feature has been challenged by some researchers.

title: Black hole information paradox


text:
Aero Car (1921 automobile)

The Aero Car was a planned American automobile. It was to have used a two-cycle engine to drive a propeller. The car, whose wheelbase was only 60 in, was to have sold for $160. One prototype was made, in 1921, before the project was shelved.

The prototype is on display at the National Automobile Museum, Reno, Nevada.

title: Aero Car (1921 automobile)


text:
Talk:Battle of Quatre Bras

Dissent over the changes of the outcome of the battle.
since the last revisions made to this page there was a series of changes on the outcome of the battle. It show an undisputed and clear "Coalition Victory", as the result of the battle, that of course contradict not only it's sister pages in other languages, but the entire article before those modifications. It is however well knowed who something could be wrong and corrected, in a way that expands not only the knowledge of the community, but the reliability of the page as a source. However this does not seem to be the case, some changes on the rules in what should be and should not be acepted in the infobox have resulted in changes of the result section, thus forcing certain members of the comunity, to made some adjustments, in spite of some liberties taken by other members. Since a mixed result is not an aviable option anymore. Some have decided on their own basis to pick a winner. That also contradict the nature of the scope of the battle am wars. While we are adjusting history acording to the rules of wikipedia, we are not showing a wiki who demonstrate history, but one who follow more the change of the (internal) rules. I am complaining about this issue, because the result of the battles should not be adjusted to the requirements of Wikipedia, but Wikipedia to the battle and historical facts. In this particular case we have a battle who was a "Coalition Victory", only if we ignore some facts, and some sources, in the same ways who we could said "French Victory", if we ignore some facts and sources. Remember who the previous sources pointed towards a mixed result, and some pointed the "French Vicrory" who actually is more credible as the French achieve their scope, while the battle itself ended with both sides holding their grounds, the French failed to advance beyond the crossroads, but the British withdrew and left it to the Frenchs. Even at the time of this being writen and by a long time before, the map of the campaign show a "French Victory", in any case some contradicting sources pointed who the "Coalition achieve a tactical victory"; but it was mantained who the French achieve a "Strategic Victory", but since the changes of rules narrowed the complex results to X or Y, now we have to "select, or hand pick the sources, and the results". Under this criteria the users picked who the battle of Quatre Bras was a "Coalition VIctory", I of course believe who that was slanted, and undoed this, but i was quickly corrected and it was pointed who "i should not do it", and being "biased towards the Frenchs". So i tied to explain myself, with no avail, But as it is not a debate about the user views, perceptions or works i understand who i should not comply to an user about something who is in my view percived wrong, but rather i, decide to point it in the page to the comunity to hear about it. I don't want the quality of the article being brought down by those new rules. Now i want to be clear with my disagreement and dissent over the edits on the results. I am calling you to review the results, and either acpet the fact pointed by historians and sources, of a mixed result, or a more neutral term to describe the results. Do not dismiss this because i am rather inexperienced at wikipedia, the books and sources are not. Regards, and sorry if my english is a bit precarious,Nuevousuario1011 (talk) 22:00, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

 * Do you have any actual evidence the article is inaccurate? What do the references already cited say? FDW777 (talk) 15:38, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

The sources cited at least until the change of results. And the sources who i can quote right now. Becke, Archibald Frank (1911), "Waterloo Campaign", in Chisholm, Hugh (ed.), Encyclopædia Britannica, 28 (11th ed.), Cambridge University Press, pp. 371–381 : "So true is it that a tactical failure encountered in carrying out a sound strategical plan matters but little. Again Napoleon's plan of campaign had succeeded" "Napoleon achieved his larger strategic aim of preventing Wellington's forces from aiding the Prussian army at the Battle of Ligny, which the French won the same day"

Niderost, Eric (31 July 2006), Napoleonic Wars: Battle of Quatre Bras, History Net, "Night was approaching, and Wellington now had some 36,000 effectives against Ney’s decimated 19,000. At 6:30, the duke went over to the offensive. The elite British Foot Guards cleared the Bois de Bossu, and the French were forced back to their original starting point. The Battle of Quatre Bras was over by 9 p.m., technically a draw, but a tactical victory for Wellington because it literally enabled him to survive and fight another day. Casualties had been heavy; the Allies lost 5,200, the French 4,100. On balance, the French still had the strategic upper hand. Napoleon had won a victory, albeit an incomplete one, and Wellington had been prevented from helping his Prussian ally. Wellington was a brilliant general, but his obsession with a French flanking sweep to his right was almost his undoing"

"Hundred Days Campaign 1815 and the Combats at Thuin and Gilly, Storming of Charleroi Bridgeand the Battle of Quatre Bras", Napoleon, His Army and Enemies,

"The next day Wellingon's army fell back, the French troops were left masters of the battlefield. Wellington reported Quatre Bras as an English victory, won over superior forces [actually the Duke enjoyed 2 to 1 advantage], and so it has remained in British history." At Quatre Bras Marshal Ney lost 4,140 men. The French captured British color. Ney also successfully stopped any of Wellington's forces going to the aid of Blücher's Prussians. Wellington losses were approx. 4,800 killed and wounded"(Elting - "Swords Around a Throne" p 732)

"Marshal Ney had little to reproach himself for in the day's proceedings. Thrown into his command at the eleventh hour, with only three infantry divisions and small cavalry force, he had succeeded in fulfilling the intent of his original orders: he had prevented Wellington from aiding the Prussians for the whole of the 16th. At Ligny the Prussians stood alone and were crushed (beated). Ney however can be partially blamed for the mess with deErlon's corps". John Elting - "Swords Around a Throne" p 644

Siborne, William (1895), The Waterloo Campaign, 1815 (4th ed.), Westminster: A. Constable p 201. "Ney had succeeded in preventing the junction of the Anglo-Allied Army with the Prussians" (intresting enough it is the main source to claim the British tactical victory, who ironically is cited in the article)Nuevousuario1011 (talk) 01:19, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Besides the sources cited who prove the current article to be misguided the talk archieved talk page have already deal with that issue, and there was not a "Coalition Victory", there where discussions even of a tactical French victory (meaning a French victory), but I prefer to relate to the "sources" rather than opinions, and just what i said yesterday is enough, to show, who of the many possible results. "Coalition Victory", does not fit any consideration of the development of the battle campaign or war, itself,.Nuevousuario1011 (talk) 20:57, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

 * I've asked you repeatedly to stop violating WP:MILMOS. Since you don't appear to be disputed that "Coalition victory" is properly referenced, that's how it remains. We don't add "Strategic French victory" as well. FDW777 (talk) 21:58, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

I give you the sources who said who the french did indeed achieve it's strategic goals. And who those sources, are contradicting, and some are against the "Coalition Victory".Nuevousuario1011 (talk) 22:04, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

 * Supposed French straetgic goals do not change the fact they lost the battle. You, here, changed the text to "Coalition tactical victory" thereby admitting those references say that. If you claim they do not, please provide the full passages rather than short sentences which are very much open to interpretation. For example, I checked your claimed EB quote and it isn't even obvious which battle it applies to. FDW777 (talk) 07:39, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

It's true i probably should not claimed who the British won at a tactical level either, those quotes are the same ones who anybody can read directly from the wikipedia notes and citations, references etc. And of course it is refering to Quatre Bras, especially on chapters over the battle itself. About losing the battle that is not what many of the sources claim, actually say who the British who left the field in the face of the enemy first, is not a "victory", so the French did not lose Quatre Bras either. At this stage you are acting more to defend an erroneous affirmation, who is product of your interpretation of the rules, rather than acting as an "experienced wikipedist" if it is something. I am here to change it not because i begun with the idea of changing the results for it's "ambiguity", that was you. And yet you didn't provide sources to back your claim, you just left the same ones who were before as a reference to the tactical level who not only is up to the especific interpretation of each author, but not even claim such results, they said who it was a "tactical victory", because the British "survived to fight another day", or they hold their positions, nothing more than that. On the other hand the sources cleary said, "The French achieved their objectives". So it is more a victory for the French acording to the sources. Even there are some debates from 2006, in the talk page who have already agree, who it was a French victory, until some said, "but it was a coalition tactical victory". Now you came here and say it was a coalition victory, period. Before this you acused me of partiality, and i believed who maybe you were just wrong, but now, i am seeing who you are being partial in favour of some "British myths", and if some contributed to the article being a bit contradictory it was because the last series of edits, in wich you got to be a lot. Thus said, i must add, all the wikipedias in other idioms are pointing to "Allied retreat", "French Victory", "Inconclusive", including an "A article", (who is not the case with this idiom page, now all the sudden, In English the reality is an alternative one? or is because you are more focused on dismissing the true, logical and sourced facts?. Giving your little intrest on the discussion until i change something. i must change the results, to those who are the right ones, it was not a coalition victory, so how i must refer to that?.Nuevousuario1011 (talk) 11:15, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Making it up as you go along
First it was "Strategic French victory, Tactically Indecisive". This was reverted by, saying "Not what the sources say"

Then it was "Coalition tactical victory, Strategic French victory" (citing EB, more on that soon).

Then it was "Inconclusive"

Now it becomes "French Victory" (again citing EB).

The EB page is here. There is nothing there about the battle of Quatre Bras being a French victory, nor on the previous page or subsequent page that I can see. The passage youy quoted in support of your claim ("So true is it that a tactical failure encountered in carrying out a sound strategical plan matters but little") isn't even clearly talking about the battle of Quatre Bras, per WP:BURDEN The cited source must clearly support the material as presented in the article. It does not.

As you have demonstrably added one false reference in support of your fantasy result, and failed to provide full quotes that come close to supporting your version, I have restored the consensus version. FDW777 (talk) 13:30, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

I see you were even citing napoleonistyka 2021 in support of your claim of French victory, are you trolling now? There is the (unreliable) page, Had Davout, instead of Ney, commanded Napoleon's left wing, there can be little doubt that Quatre Bras would have been a French victory, "would have been" quite obviously meaning it was not a French victory. FDW777 (talk) 13:48, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Here you add another claimed reference. There is page 201, I can't see any text on the page that supports your claim, can you provide the exact quote? FDW777 (talk) 14:02, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

In spite of the bullshit who you said, the page napoleonistyka 2021 There, was already cited, not by me but by the editors who are doing bullshit, in the last editions, so if the source could not be taken as reliable, it should not be used in the first place. (for anything).

The consensus version so far appear to include your opinion only, because before June 2 the result was the other, but then you are the only one who insist with Coalition Victory. Consensus is what i am looking for, but as you are the only one and seems to have more intrest in a version rather than on the history is impossible to have. Consensus however was reached by other ussers on previous talks.

There are no sources who especifically say who The coalition, allies, british, Wellington or wherever won the battle. Thus Coalition Victory is not aceptable.

Considering who you are the one who changed the results it should be up to you to justify the fantasy result who you wrote. Not from me because i defended the previous one.

About the changes who i made the reason is simple, it was either a French victory or inconclusive acoridng to some sources. You said who Wellington won the field, ok, i put tactical victory for him. Then you said who there was no Strategic and tactical victory, ok, i put inconclusive, then who it was not, so i put French Victory.

Then i did not write anything who is maded on air, like the narrow rules who are now in place, and who you use to promote a contested result.

The EB source, who is one of the most used and acepted in wikipedia, should not be a problem. And over which action is spoken is said exactly when it talk about Quatre Bras, where claiming such result.

Yet i provided more than one source, or two or three.

The page who said "Would had been", was deemed by you as unreliable. so there is nothing who you could claim from there now. But even it's reference spoke of a victory on the field not of an inconclusive battle. Thus said it never admit an Allied Victory. But at least we know who the Allied plans where screw by Ney's stand at Quatre Bras.

Page 201, is by the redirecting towards the source. https://archive.org/details/waterloocampaig01sibogoog. As diferent editions and papers have different pages, yet, while speaking of Quatre Bras, it said who both armies gained something and lose something.

The last issue is again. Why Wikipedia.en is totally different than wikipedia in X idiom? All the others are wrong i must supouse, even the +Articles, who Wikipedia.en did not have here (Speaking of Quatre Bras, if there are some doubts).

I believed who you where a kind of "professional" on the matter, and who would listen to the points, as well as try to reach a consensus, but it seems who yoy have an agenda, so what can i do? I hear your claims, and pointed as a Coalition Tactical Victory, i hear your claims and put it on indesicive, i hear you, but not the other way, if you reverted it anyways i will point it simpe as French Victory, what did you expect?. You change an article who had been the same from 2006, and ask the other about the sources. You speak of consensus but, the consensus was reached on this talk page, by just looking at the archive. Still, cordially regards, and pointing towards coperationNuevousuario1011 (talk) 20:11, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

 * The page numbers on archive appear on the page as part of the text, we don't use archive.org's page numbers that appear at the bottom of their viewer.

 * I'm struggling to understand anything else you've written. If you would like to change the article, please state which references you would like to cite and provide quotes that clearly support the change you want to make. FDW777 (talk) 20:48, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

 * Also please stop going on about EB unless you're prepeared to provide quotes from it that support your change. So true is it that a tactical failure encountered in carrying out a sound strategical plan matters but little does not support anything, since it's not clear what battle is even being talked about. FDW777 (talk) 20:50, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

 * In addition, there is the version before I edited the article. The lead says While the battle was a coalition victory. The aftermath section says The allied victory at Quatre Bras. All I did was amend the infobox to match those, per the instructions. FDW777 (talk) 20:59, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Okay i'm still searching about sources to properly made a claim, however i was delayed by a similar situation with the battles of Redinha and Pombal on the talk page. We need consensus, i provide the quotes and sources, would you want to help?Nuevousuario1011 (talk) 11:15, 27 June 2021 (UTC) Cordially regards

 * You provided quotes and references that I refuted, since they do not say what you think they do. FDW777 (talk) 18:24, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

I think that Anglo-allied victory is correct for a one day battle, because in the evening the Allies held the field of slaughter, however if considered as a two day battle then the French won as the Allies had to retreat. To simply state one or the other is misleading because Nay's wing had thwarted the Allied army going to the aid of the Prussians. -- PBS (talk) 12:41, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

From EB1911

— PBS (talk) 14:39, 13 October 2021 (UTC)"

FDW777 in reference to the above you wrote in this section " to User:Nuevousuario1011, however I think it is obvious because where was Ney, the French marshal in command of French forces during the battle, camped overnight, if not just south of Quatre Bras at Frasnes? -- PBS (talk) 15:03, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

 * MOS:MIL gives guidance on the result parameter to be used in the infobox and specifically refers to the infobox documentation in this respect. Specifically, it refers to the "immediate" outcome.  The immediate result was an allied victory.  However, this is somewhat qualified by the greater context but did not ultimately change the outcome of the campaign.  Consequently (with reference to the guidance), the result is: "Anglo-allied victory (see Aftermath)".  The infobox is not the place for nuance.  The lead has greater scope to accommodate nuance – and it does this.  The Aftermath section is somewhat ambiguous when it states: The allied victory at Quatre Bras did prevent Ney from controlling these strategic crossroads. This in turn slowed down the French advance ... While we might debate the result here, the body of the article must reflect both the lead and the infobox.  Futhermore, the article is about a battle that occurred on 16 June 1815. This is the scope of the article. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 10:48, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

 * Saying Coalition victory is even worse that saying Anglo-allied victory because it implies that the Prussians were involved in the battle. The immediate outcome was simultaneously a tactical victory for Wellington and a strategic victory for the French. "The infobox is not the place for nuance". The infobox should briefly sum up the battle and not mislead people who have no knowledge of the battle.
 * The outcome was a tactical victory for Wellington. He held the field at the end of the day. However if Ney had not attacked him there he would have turned to his left and aided Blucher, much in the way that Blucher did two day later at Waterloo. The whole point of Ney's advance was to block Wellington doing that as Napoleon's strategic aim, was with his smaller force to defeat one army then the other. If as happened at Waterloo the Coalition forces combined then their superior numbers would defeat him. So Ney did not succeed in capturing and holding the crossroads,and so can not be said to have one the battle. However his attack pinned Wellington to that cross roads and so gained the strategic victory that Napoleon needed so the he could win the Battle of Ligney. -- PBS (talk) 14:47, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

 * If we can't agree on how to fill the result parameter in accordance with the guidance at MOS:MIL, then the guidance is to omit the parameter. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:50, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

 * I suggest to write the result as "Inconclusive. See Waterloo campaign: Quatre Bras to Waterloo" as the description is very Ruedi33a (talk) 06:21, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * User:Ruedi33a, to put in inconclusive is innacurate. The battle was not inconclusive. There was a conclusion to the battle which resulted in a tactical victory for the Anglo-allies and a simultanious strategic victory for the French. . — PBS (talk) 22:33, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

I can live with that, though I am inclined to the "see Aftermath" option. Cinderella157 (talk) 09:06, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * @User:Cinderella157 Let us salami slice it. Do you agree or disagree that it was a tactical victory for Wellington? If you disagree why? — PBS (talk) 22:27, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

 * I agree that in respect to the infobox and the result parameter, we should be following the guidance at MOS:MIL. It was a victory for Wellington. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:52, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 * @User:Cinderella157 Do you agree or disagree that it was strategic victory for the French? If you disagree why? -- PBS (talk) 09:40, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

 * I'm not certain that it was. While Ney may have prevented Wellington from joining Blucher, on the other hand, Wellington denied Ney the vital ground.  This allowed Wellington to assemble his force on a battlefield of his choice and ultimately defeat Napoleon's army and win the war.  However, it is neither your opinion nor mine that counts, since this is WP:OR.  Conflicting terms in an infobox cannot capture nuance. This is precisely the type of discussion for which the guidance at MOS:MIL was intended to address. There are several options under MOS:MIL that I could support given that they are consistent with the body of the article.  I would note however, that your edit to the lead is not supported by the body of the article. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:06, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I always am quite amused about these discussions that are often more heated than the battle itself ever was. I see that the current "result" in the info box is listed as "indecisive". In the French version of the article (which I myself wrote ten years ago; see general statistics, authorship still 48% of the edits) I kept far away from this kind of assessment, because I didn't want to be shot at dawn by the French editors. In any case, at first the consensus was that it was a "draw" at least tactically. But now they seem to have settled on "statu quo tactique; Victoire stratégique française". It is all fine by me. Ereunetes (talk) 21:39, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Did Saxe-Weimar act on his own initiative?
Veronica Baker-Smith writes: ''Rebècque had received the news of the fall of Charleroi twelve hours earlier, and correctly deduced that this confirmed the line of Napoleon’s main advance since he would hardly have used his élite Imperial Guard for a feint. He had been as conscious as Wellington of the danger of a flanking attack, but he was now able to dismiss the idea long before Wellington did. Rebècque did not have to consult a map to see the danger; he sent an order to Perponcher to station his 1st and 2nd Brigades at or near Quatre Bras itself.

''Simultaneously, Bernard of Saxe-Weimar was acting on his own initiative. He commanded a Nassau regiment, consisting of men who had fought well in the Peninsula under Imperial command, and switched to British service when Napoleon was defeated at Leipzig. It now formed part of the Netherlands force as an independent unit in Perponcher’s 2nd Division, and had been cantoned on the extreme left of the British line in the village of Genappe. Through the morning of 15 June Bernard noticed increased movement from the south on the main road, and in mid-afternoon as an officer from the Maréchaussee (Dutch police) panted in to say that the French were past Charleroi, and those on the road were refugees, he heard the cannon fi re from the south (against the Prussian outposts) and, realising the danger, used his own initiative and instructed his battalion commanders to concentrate at Quatre Bras immediately: ‘Ik ben volstrekt zonder bevelen, maar ik heb nooit gehoord dat men een veldtocht met een terugtocht begint.’ (Gentlemen, I have been given no orders whatsoever but I have never heard of a campaign which began with a retreat.)''

''Due to the previous orders for a state of high alert, he reached Quatre Bras within the hour and joined the 3rd Nassau battalion, whose commander, Major Heckman, had ‘through his military instinct’ marched to the same place before receiving orders. As they surveyed the ground, a non- commissioned offi cer came in at full gallop to report the engagement between the French and the Nassauers at Frasnes.''

Knoop also highlights this, but the article doesn't reflect it DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 19:58, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

 * See also De Bas and Wommersom, Quatre Bras, p. 406 (available in the references) about the information Weimar and Perponcher possessed about the French movements, on which they acted "without orders" (but who needs orders in such circumstances?) to ignore the order to concentrate on Nivelle, and instead reinforced Quatre Bras. I think De Bas and Wommersom could be used far more. When I wrote the French version of the article I used the book extensively, especially on the tardiness of the British in getting to Quatre Bras. Incidentally, in Order of battle of the Waterloo campaign the commander of the 2nd Brigade, 2nd Netherlands division is still given as Friedrich Wilhelm von Goedecke, which is far too formalistic, as Goedecke was already hors de combat before the battle and Weimar was designated acting commander. What is the policy on this? Could we edit that nonsense? Ereunetes (talk) 20:17, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Why only start class?
The unanimous assessment of this article is "start class". But if one looks at the assessment categories b2 through B5 it is all "yes", whereas only "b1" (scope) is "no". I have seen articles where C-class was given with both b1 and b2 ("references") as "no". So isn't it time to assess this article as at least C-class (and B-class seems justified also, as I don't see why it doesn't qualify on the "scope" criterion; or otherwise we could improve it in that respect)? Ereunetes (talk) 20:23, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Strength
the strength of the dutch army in the beginning was only 8,000 but later 31k i think this should be mentioned at the strengh. Fxzeds (talk) 16:50, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

 * An infobox is not the place for (intricate) detail. Cinderella157 (talk) 22:55, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Battle of Quatre Bras


text:
Qalawun

 (قلاوون الصالحي, c. 1222 – November 10, 1290) was the seventh Turkic Bahri Mamluk Sultan of Egypt; he ruled from 1279 to 1290. He was called  (المنصور قلاوون, "Qalāwūn the Victorious"). After having risen in power in the Mamluk court and elite circles, Qalawun eventually held the title of "the victorious king" and gained de facto authority over the sultanate. He is the founder of the Qalawunid dynasty that ruled Egypt for over a century.

The current sultan, Barakah was exiled and rumored to have been poisoned by Qalawun. He would then wage war against the Crusaders, capturing lands held by the County of Tripoli, and later totally defeating them in 1289. Acre, a major Crusader stronghold was besieged by Qalawun but would only be taken by his son al-Ashraf Khalil as the former died before the siege was won in 1291. His son Khalil succeeded him as sultan.

Biography and rise to power
Qalawun Originally from the bahir Mamluks, they are children who were touched by slavery because they were kidnapped from their parents or sold from poverty, and they end up in Cairo, where one of the sultans or princes frees the Mamluk, supervises his upbringing and the Mamluk arises in Cairo.

He became a mamluk (slave soldier) in the 1240s after being sold to a member of Sultan al-Kamil's household. Qalawun was known as al-Alfī ("the Thousander"), because as-Salih Ayyub bought him for a thousand dinars of gold.

Qalawun initially barely spoke Arabic, but he rose in power and influence where he then became an emir under Sultan Baibars, whose son, al-Said Barakah, was married to Qalawun's daughter. Baibars died in 1277 and was succeeded by Barakah. In early 1279, as Barakah and Qalawun invaded the Armenian Kingdom of Cilicia, there was a revolt in Egypt that forced Barakah to abdicate upon his return home. He was succeeded by his brother Solamish, but it was Qalawun, acting as atabeg, who was the true holder of power. Because Solamish was only seven years old, Qalawun argued that Egypt needed an adult ruler, and Solamish was sent into exile in Constantinople in late 1279. As a result, Qalawun took the title al-Malik al-Manṣūr ("the victorious king").

The governor of Damascus, Sunqur al-Ashqar, did not agree with Qalawun's ascent to power and declared himself sultan. Sunqur's claim of leadership, however, was repelled in 1280, when Qalawun defeated him in battle. In 1281, Qalawun and Sunqur reconciled as a matter of convenience when Abaqa Khan, head of the Ilkhanate, invaded Syria. Qalawun and Sunqur, working together, successfully repelled Abaqa's attack at the Second Battle of Homs.

Barakah, Solamish, and their brother Khadir were exiled to al-Karak, the former Crusader castle. Barakah died there in 1280 (it was rumored that Qalawun had him poisoned), and Khadir gained control of the castle, until 1286 when Qalawun took it over directly.

In 1282 he founded Ribat al-Mansuri, a ribat (hospice) next to the in Jerusalem. The nearby was founded by Kurd al-Manṣūrī, a mamluk of Qalawun.

Mamluk diplomacy
As Baibars had done previously, Qalawun entered into land control treaties with the remaining Crusader states, military orders and individual lords who wished to remain independent; he recognized Tyre and Beirut as separate from the Kingdom of Jerusalem, now centered on Acre. The treaties were always in Qalawun's favor, and his treaty with Tyre mandated that the city would not build new fortifications, would stay neutral in conflicts between the Mamluks and other Crusaders, and Qalawun would be allowed to collect half the city's taxes.

In 1281 Qalawun also negotiated an alliance with Michael VIII Palaiologos of the Byzantine Empire to bolster resistance against Charles I of Naples, who was threatening both the Byzantine Empire and the Kingdom of Jerusalem. In 1290, he concluded trade alliances with the Republic of Genoa and the Kingdom of Sicily.

Wars against the Crusader states
Undeterred by the terms of these newly formed peace treaties, Qalawun sacked the "impregnable" Hospitaller fortress of Margat in 1285, and established a Mamluk garrison there. He also captured and destroyed the castle of Maraclea. He captured Latakia in 1287 and Tripoli on April 27, 1289, thus ending the Crusader County of Tripoli. The Fall of Tripoli in 1289 was spurred by the Venetians and the Pisans, who opposed rising Genoese influence in the area. In 1290, reinforcements of King Henry arrived in Acre and drunkenly slaughtered peaceable merchants and peasants, Christians and Muslims alike.

Qalawun sent an embassy to ask for an explanation and above all to demand that the murderers be handed over for punishment. The Frankish response was divided between those who sought to appease him and those who sought a new war. Having received neither an explanation nor the murderers themselves, Qalawun decided that the ten-year truce he had formed with Acre in 1284 had been broken by the Franks. He subsequently besieged the city that same year. He died in Cairo on 10 November 1290, before taking the city, but Acre was captured the next year by his son al-Ashraf Khalil.

Despite Qalawun's distrust of his son, Khalil succeeded him following his death. Khalil continued his father's policy of replacing Turkish Mamluks with Circassians, which eventually led to conflict within the Mamluk ranks. Khalil was assassinated by the Turks in 1293, but Qalawun's legacy continued when his younger son, an-Nasir Muhammad, claimed power.

Family
Qalawun's first wife was Fatima Khatun, known as Umm Salih. She was the daughter of Sayf ad-Din Karmun (Karamūm), a Mongol commander from the Golden Horde who had integrated the Mamluks. They married in 1265–66. She was the mother of his eldest son, as-Salih Ali (died 2 September 1288) and Ghaziya Khatun. She died in 1283–84, and was buried in her own mausoleum in Southern Cemetery, Cairo.

After her death, he married her sister, the widow of Sayf ad-Din Kunduk. Another wife was Qutqutiya Khatun. She was the mother of his second son, Sultan al-Ashraf Khalil.

Another wife was Sitt Ashlun Khatun (Ašlūn), the daughter of an Ilkhanate Mongol notable named Suktay bin Qarajin bin Jighan Nuwan (Šaktāy) who also had joined the Mamluks. They married in 1282. She was the mother of his third son, Sultan an-Nasir Muhammad. An-Nasir Muhammad was raised and behaved in Mongol fashion until the age of 29, until he had a change of mood after an illness in 1315, which led him and his followers to "shave their heads [...] and give up their flowing locks".

Another wife was the daughter of Amir Shams ad-Din Sunqur al-Takriti al-Zahiri. They married in 1288–89. Qalawun, however, dissolved the marriage shortly thereafter. Another son was Amir Ahmad, who died during the reign of his brother al-Ashraf Khalil. Qalawun's daughter Ghaziya Khatun was betrothed to as-Said Barakah (son of Sultan Baibars) on 28 May 1276, with a dowry of five thousand dinars. The wedding took place on 8 June 1277. She died in August 1288, and was buried in the mausoleum of her mother. Another daughter was Dar Mukhatar al-Jawhari (Altumish). She was the wife of Mukhtar al-Jawhari. Another daughter was Dar Anbar al-Kamili. She was the wife of Anbar al-Kamili.

title: Qalawun


text:
Frances D. Fergusson

Frances Daly Fergusson (born October 3, 1944) served as president of Vassar College from 1986 to 2006. A graduate of Wellesley College, Fergusson earned her AM and PhD in Art History at Harvard University before starting her teaching career at Newton College.

Life
Frances Daly Fergusson was born on October 3, 1944, in Boston, Massachusetts.

In 1975, she began teaching at University of Massachusetts at Boston, where she later became assistant chancellor. Fergusson continued her career in academic administration from 1982 until 1986 at Bucknell University, where she served as Provost and Vice President of the university. She left Bucknell to become Vassar's president. Fergusson has published extensively in the field of architectural history, including an award-winning article on the iconography of St. Charles' Church in Vienna.

An avid and effective fundraiser, she raised more than $750 million for Vassar College. Her administration oversaw extensive renovation of the campus, including refurbishment of the library, the creation of a new art center, and construction of a modern drama and film center. Both the Frances Lehman Loeb Art Center and the Vogelstein Center for Drama and Film were designed by architect Cesar Pelli.

While serving as Vassar's president, Fergusson also contributed her administrative talents as a member of the Boards of Trustees of the Ford Foundation from (1989–2001) and the Mayo Foundation/Mayo Clinic from 1988 to 2002. She was chair of the board of the Mayo Clinic from 1998 to 2002. She has also served on the boards of the National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities (NAICU), the Foreign Policy Association, The Noguchi Museum, WNET/Thirteen, and the Society of Architectural Historians of the United States. She was a member of the boards of the Getty Trust, The Ringling Museum of Art, the National Humanities Council, and The Foundation for Contemporary Arts.

Currently, she also serves on the boards of The School of American Ballet, Second Stage Theatre, The American Council of Learned Societies and the Sarasota Opera. She is also a member of the Board of Trust of The American Academy of Arts and Sciences. She was elected to the American Academy in 2002. In the corporate world, she served on the boards of Pfizer and Mattel, Wyeth Pharmaceuticals, Central Hudson Gas and Electric Corporation and HSBC Bank USA.

On February 16, 2005, Fergusson announced her intention to step down as president of Vassar College after twenty years as head of the institution. Catharine Bond Hill assumed the position of president at the end of the 2005-2006 academic year.

At her graduate alma mater, Harvard, she was the president of the Board of Overseers from 2007 to 2008 and served on the search committee that brought Drew Faust to the presidency of Harvard. She received the Centennial Medal from the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences at Harvard and the Harvard Medal for Outstanding Service to the University.

Awards

 * Doctor of Literature degrees (honorary) from the University of London
 * Centennial Medal of the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences, Harvard University (1999)
 * Honorary doctoral degrees from Bard College, and the University of Hartford
 * Harvard Medal for "outstanding service to the University"

title: Frances D. Fergusson


text:
Aeroford

The Aeroford was an English automobile that was manufactured in Bayswater, London from 1920 to 1925. The Aeroford was an attempt to make the Ford Model T more attractive by disguising its appearance with a unique bonnet and radiator grille.

The Aeroford sold from £288 in 1920 before dropping to £168 to £214 by 1925. It was available as a two-seater, four-seater or coupé model.

title: Aeroford


text:
Georg Karl Friedrich Kunowsky

Georg Karl Friedrich Kunowsky (3 March 1786 –23 December 1846) was a German lawyer who was also a talented amateur astronomer.

He made observations of Mars with an 11 cm achromatic refractor telescope made by Joseph von Fraunhofer, which was one of the first times that achromatic refractors were used for planetary observation; these were a notable improvement over the reflectors available to earlier observers.

Like William Herschel before him, he came to the correct conclusion that the visible patches on Mars were surface features rather than clouds or other transient features. Observers like Johann Hieronymus Schröter had come to the opposite conclusion.

He also made observations of the Moon, and was one of a number of astronomers to independently discover the return of Comet Halley in 1835.

Kunowsky crater on the Moon and another crater on Mars were named in his honour.

title: Georg Karl Friedrich Kunowsky