text:
TIM

Tim or TIM may refer to:

Human names

 * Timothy (given name)
 * Tim (given name)
 * Timmy
 * Timo
 * Timotheus

Place names

 * Tim, Denmark
 * Tim, Kursk Oblast
 * Tim River in northeastern Ontario, Canada

Fictional characters

 * a list of characters named Tim
 * Tim, a character from the film Robots
 * Tim the Enchanter, a character from Monty Python and the Holy Grail
 * Tim the Bear, a character from The Cleveland Show
 * Tim the Beaver, the mascot of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology
 * TIM, a computer from The Tomorrow People
 * Tim, a character from The Magic School Bus
 * Tim, the title character from the adult animated sitcom The Life & Times of Tim
 * Tim, a character from BrainPop
 * Mountain Tim, a supporting character in Steel Ball Run, a story arc of the Japanese manga series Jojo's Bizarre Adventure

Other uses in arts and entertainment

 * Tim (Avicii album), a 2019 album by Avicii
 * Tim (The Replacements album), a 1985 album by The Replacements
 * Tim (film), an 1979 Australian film
 * T.I.M. (film), a British 2023 science fiction film
 * Tim (novel), a 1974 novel by Colleen McCullough
 * TIM Defender of the Earth, a 2008 young adult science fiction novel by Sam Enthoven
 * TIM (Owarai), a Japanese comedy unit
 * Treasure Island Media (TIM), a gay pornographic studio
 * The Incredible Machine (series), a video game series

Biology and chemistry

 * HAVCR1 (Hepatitis A virus cellular receptor 1), also known as T-cell immunoglobulin and mucin-domain 1 (TIM-1)
 * HAVCR2 (Hepatitis A virus cellular receptor 2), also known as T-cell immunoglobulin and mucin-domain containing-3 (TIM-3)
 * Triosephosphate isomerase
 * TIM (psychedelics) (thioisomescaline), a series of psychedelic drugs
 * Translocase of the inner membrane, a complex of proteins found in the inner mitochondrial membrane of the mitochondria
 * Timeless (gene), a gene involved in the fly circadian clock
 * TIM barrel, a protein fold structure
 * Transmembrane immunoglobulin and munin domain, a family of immunomodulatory proteins

Other uses in science and technology

 * Televisión Independiente de México, a Mexican national television network
 * Thermal interface material, any material inserted between two parts to enhance the thermal coupling between
 * Telecom Italia Mobile, an Italian telecommunications subsidiary owned by Telecom Italia
 * TIM Brasil, a Brazilian telecommunications subsidiary owned by Telecom Italia
 * TIM Hellas, a Greek telecommunications subsidiary owned by Telecom Italia
 * TIM San Marino, a San Marino telecommunications subsidiary owned by Telecom Italia
 * TIMvision, an Italian video on demand service owned by Telecom Italia
 * IBM Tivoli Identity Manager, an identity-management system product
 * TNO intestinal model, model systems mimicking the digestive tract

Other uses

 * East Timor, UNDP country code TIM
 * TIM (Bulgaria), an organized crime syndicate incorporated as a holding company
 * Tim (inhabited locality), several inhabited localities in Russia
 * Tim (Oldenburg Baby), an aborted child that survived
 * Tiako I Madagasikara, a Malagasy political party
 * TIM, a nickname for the UK speaking clock telephone service

title: TIM


text:
Wikipedia:Today's featured article/August 2, 2004

Horatio Nelson, 1st Viscount Nelson was a British admiral who won fame as a leading naval commander during the Napoleonic Wars. He was knighted in 1797 following his victory at the Battle of Cape St Vincent. He died at the Battle of Trafalgar, a decisive English victory in the war. Nelson was noted for his considerable ability to inspire and bring out the best in his men, to the point that it gained a name: "The Nelson Touch". He was revered after death like few military figures in British history. (more...)

Recently featured: Quantum mechanics – Typewriter – History of Scotland

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


text:
Wikipedia:Today's featured article/August 1, 2004

Quantum mechanics is a physical theory that describes the behaviour of physical systems over small distances. It is the underlying framework of many fields of physics and chemistry, including condensed matter physics, quantum chemistry, and particle physics. It is derived from a small set of basic principles, and explains four types of phenomena that classical mechanics and classical electrodynamics cannot account for: quantization, the uncertainty principle, wave-particle duality, and quantum entanglement. (more...)

Recently featured: Typewriter – History of Scotland – Radar


text:
Talk:Sumo

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 20 August 2019 and 15 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jordanwunderli. Peer reviewers: Chriszhouzzl97, U1089327.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 10:26, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Mongolian sumo
Doesn't have a ring. Bout ends when one of the fighters falls.

This article, it seems represents only japanesse sumo. It would be good to expand it because the most succesful sumo wrestler in history is a mongolian. 213.149.61.151 (talk) 16:50, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Presumably you’re referring to Mongolian wrestling? That is a separate sport and I don’t think it needs to be mentioned in this article. Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:56, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * @Pawnkingthree Haiwain wrestling is sumu too ! 79.144.194.12 (talk) 21:43, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Sumo is popular in Hawaii, yes. Again, don't know if it needs a special mention. Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:43, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Height requirement section should be cut
Seems strange to me that this section exists.
 * It's definitely outdated. I don't even know what the current height requirement is, but it looks like it has at least been lowered to 167 and 165cm for trainees already. This section only talks about what the rule was at one point in 1994.
 * Section is focused almost entirely on a single anecdote about a single person who was never a significant figure in sumo. It seems to me this story would be more appropriate in the Controversies in Professional Sumo article.
 * I don't think the height requirement in general warrants being its own section. While it may matter to some 15-year old potential recruits, in reality the existence or non-existence of this rule has little impact on the sport as a whole. Few wrestlers who are anywhere near the minimum limit are able to compete at top levels anyway. Ura is the shortest Makuuchi wrestler in recent times, listed at 172cm, which is well above the the current requirements (assuming it's currently 165cm -- which is what I've read elsewhere though I haven't tracked down the source myself).
 * The main thrust of the section ends up being about the JSA banning surgical enhancements to meet height requirements. While it's interesting, it's an exceedingly esoteric topic that doesn't even come close to deserving this prominent position in the main article on sumo. I think of it like, if someone wanted to quickly learn about sumo, what would be on the list of, say, the top 20 things they needed to know? Would the rule against surgically enhancing your height be one of them? (I'm not sure it would be in the top 500.)

Recommendations: --Benjaminmorris (talk) 18:46, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) This section should be cut.
 * 2) The anecdote about the silicone implants should be moved to Controversies article (if kept at all).
 * 3) The height requirement rule -- if someone can track it down -- should be a sentence or two at most, likely somewhere in the Professional Sumo section.

Plan for Editing "Sumo"
I want to add a section on the Sumo article for Sumo Wrestler's clothes. Overall, the "Sumo" page is full of information and well written, but it is missing a key section, I feel. Nowhere in the current article, does it mention why Sumo Wrestlers wear the clothes they wear, and I want to add that section and answer this question. I feel that this would make the article more complete and have more information for people looking at this page.

In the section, I plan to tell why sumo wrestlers wear what they wear, how much it cost, and if there is any meaning behind it, along with any other things that come up during my research.

Sources:

So far, I have found a few websites that have useful information. I am still looking for other sources as well.

https://www.livestrong.com/article/483679-what-do-sumo-wrestlers-wear-during-a-match/

https://www.japantimes.co.jp/sports/2018/11/23/sumo/sumo-101-wrestlers-clothing-footwear/#.XaDHPpNKhAY

https://www.usasumo.com/shop/sumo-equipment/

Jordanwunderli (talk) 18:23, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

History clarification
"Takeminakata was the ruler of the common people and Takeminakata was the god of wind, water and agriculture. Takeminakata challenged Takeminakata for his land."

Something wrong here. Scott Sherard (talk) 02:11, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * fixed.  Tigerboy1966  09:56, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

'Grand Sumo Tournament Event' in the Sport Calendar on the mainpage
hello Sumo Fans, please help, someone (Greatminton) delete the 'Grand Sumo Tournament Event' in the sport calendar on the mainpage under https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Current_events/Sports. he means - non-notable. - maybe 'vandalism'. he only will see sports he like. - ====Sumo==== *Nov 13–28: Grand Sumo Tournament Kyūshū Basho in Fukuoka Kokusai Center, Japan - ... thanks, Sumo-Sport (talk) 21:51, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

 * @Sumo-Sport You're referring to Portal:Current events/Sports/Sidebar? I have little to no knowledge of the Current Events portal. I see Greatminton removed the Kyushu basho as it doesn't have its own dedicated article. The six honbasho are of course notable in sumo terms, but we don't have separate articles for them. Pawnkingthree (talk) 22:44, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * First of all, I only commented out it, not erasing it. Second, the link you provided did not directly point to the event you said, so I fixed it. You want me to put it back? Fine. Don't whine. Greatminton (talk) 02:59, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Life expectancy
The article said "Sumo wrestlers have a life expectancy between 60 and 65, more than 20 years shorter than the average Japanese male". No source was cited for that sentence – only for the paragraph as a whole. In contrast, the first source cited for the paragraph says "Sumo wrestlers have a life expectancy of 65, 10 years less than the average Japanese male." Relative to what that source says, the Wikipedia article is lowering the life expectancy of the wrestlers by a couple of years and is doubling the difference with the life expectancy of the general population. The second source cited for the paragraph appears to say nothing about sumo wrestlers – it is just general population statistics –  so its connection to sumo wrestlers appears to be WP:original research. (I did not study its content to see whether it supports the idea that men in the general population have a life expectancy of 85 or more – but I note that there are issues with performing such actuarial comparisons ourselves, such as what age should be the starting point for the life expectancy comparison and survivorship bias.) Three more sources were just added a few hours ago in this edit. Two of them are in Japanese, so I don't know what they say. The third one is a letter to the editor, and thus may be somewhat of an WP:OP-ED or WP:PRIMARY source (and perhaps not especially reliable – e.g. the third sentence of the article is grammatically incorrect and the fifth sentence has a misspelling of "study" as "studie"). It also does not seem relevant to the statement that I quoted, as it does not say what is the life expectancy of sumo wrestlers and does not talk about the relationship of their life expectancy to that of the general population. I suggest that the article appeared to be exaggerating what the sources say – at least what the sources that were cited more than a few hours ago would properly support. There is a big difference between 10 years and more than 20 years, and there is also a difference between 65 and the range from 60 to 65. — BarrelProof (talk) 17:22, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I was looking for sources for this claim, and there appear to have been very few scientific studies done on the mortality of sumo wrestlers. My reason for adding the sources is that they supported the claim that higher body mass was associated with increased mortality. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:16, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Sumu wrestling in other countries
An article about its progress in other countries other than Japan 79.144.194.12 (talk) 21:42, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Sumo


text:
Erasmo of Narni

Erasmo Stefano of Narni (1370 – 16 January 1443), better known by his nickname of Gattamelata (meaning "Honeyed Cat"), was an Italian condottiero of the Renaissance. He was born in Narni, and served a number of Italian city-states: he began with Braccio da Montone, served the Papal States and Florence, as well as the Republic of Venice in 1434 in the battles with the Visconti of Milan.

He was the subject of Donatello's equestrian bronze sculpture in the main square of Padua, the same city over which he became podestà in 1437.

In Narni, the farmhouse in which Gattamelata was born bears a plaque reading "Narnia me genuit Gattamelata fui" ("I was born in Narni, I was Gattamelata").

Biography
Erasmo of Narni was born in Narni, in Umbria, into a poor family. His station in life led him to the military, initially under the Assisi lord Cecchino Broglia. Later, together with his friend Brandolino Brandolini, he served under Braccio da Montone, one of the leading Italian condottieri of the 15th century, lord of Perugia from 1416.

With Braccio, he participated in the conquest of Todi, Rieti, Narni, Terni and Spoleto, and, in 1419, in the battle of Viterbo against Muzio Attendolo. At the War of L'Aquila (June 1424), Braccio's army was utterly defeated, and the condottiero himself killed; Erasmo led the remaining troops into the service of the Republic of Florence. In 1427 Pope Martin V hired him to regain the lands captured by Braccio da Montone. Città di Castello fell in 1428, but Erasmo had moved to the northern Papal States to counter the rebellion of Imola, Forlì and Bologna. He entered the latter in 1431 as the General Captain of the Papal States, and he also suppressed Antonio Ordelaffi's rebellion in Forlì.

Mostly because of his discontent with late wages, Erasmo abandoned the Papal services in 1434. He was subsequently hired by the Republic of Venice. In the course of the war against the Filippo Maria Visconti of Milan, he defended Bologna and fought against Niccolò Piccinino. The latter defeated him at Castelbolognese on 28 August 1434, in a battle in which Gattamelata was wounded. After a series of clashes and counter-manoeuvers, often lost by the anti-Visconti league (Gattamelata's side), he successfully defended Brescia and Verona in 1438. For this he was granted the title of General Commander of the armies of the Republic of Venice. However, the following year the Venetians lost numerous cities, including Legnago, Soave and finally Verona itself. This defeat led to strong criticism of Gattamelata. The Venetian Republic then called on Francesco Sforza to fight alongside Gattamelata, and the two re-entered Verona on 9 July 1439.

In 1440, while mustering a flotilla on Lake Garda, Gattamelata was struck down by a cerebral haemorrhage. He never fully recovered, nor led further substantial military campaigns. He died at Padua in 1443.

Personal life
Erasmo's daughter Polissena Romagnola married Tiberto Brandolini, the son of his best friend Brandolino Brandolini of Bagnacavallo, a descendant of the lords of Brandenburgh, and Giovanna dei Signori della Tela. Polissena and Tiberto had two sons Sigismondo and Leonello. Therefore, the counts of Brandolini d'Adda appear to be the only known descendants of Erasmo of Narni. On the 8th of February 1458, Sigismondo married Antonia, daughter of Annibale Bentivoglio. His second marriage was to Margherita Scotti, which showed that Sigismondo was a sufficiently important personality to be able to form an alliance with the most notable family in Piacenza.

title: Erasmo of Narni


text: Wikipedia:Today's featured article/August 2004


text:
Expedition 5

Expedition 5 was the fifth long-duration stay on the International Space Station (ISS). The crew, consisting of three people, remained in space for 184 days, 178 of which were spent aboard the ISS. Expedition 5 was a continuation of an uninterrupted human presence in space, as of November 2022, which was begun by Expedition 1 in 2000–2001.

The crew of Expedition 5 launched to space aboard the Space Shuttle Endeavour aboard the STS-111 mission on 5 June 2002. Their tenure aboard the station, however, did not begin until they docked with the ISS two days later on 7 June.

Mission parameters

 * Perigee: 384 km
 * Apogee: 396 km
 * Inclination: 51.6°
 * Period: 92 min

Mission objectives
The Expedition Five crew took charge of ISS operations on 7 June 2002. An official ceremony between Expedition crews took place 10 June, with the ceremonial ringing of the station's brass bell, symbolizing the transfer of command. The Expedition Five crew carried out approximately 25 new investigations on board the ISS, as well as continued with various science investigations begun before their stay. The crew wrapped up a 184-day stay in space when they returned home on STS-113 7 December 2002.

Space Shuttle Endeavour delivered the Expedition 5 crew during mission STS-111 which launched 5 June 2002. The fifth crew to live aboard the International Space Station was led by Russian Valery Korzun and joined by fellow Cosmonaut Sergei Treshchev and U.S. Astronaut Peggy A. Whitson, both flight engineers. While on board, Dr. Whitson was named NASA's first ISS Science Officer by NASA Administrator O'Keefe.

Spacewalks
The Expedition Five crewmembers conducted two spacewalks during their stay at the International Space Station. Both were based out of the Pirs Docking Compartment and used Russian Orlan space suits.

title: Expedition 5


text:
Talk:Nuclear family

New Picture
I feel like this pictre better represents the classic nuclear family, with the suburbian house behind it.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by FuturisticPat07 (talk • contribs) 16:26, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Laurenfeiman. Peer reviewers: Lmart12, Victoriali2.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 01:43, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Nadine Pienaar.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 05:27, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

TITLE
This article says that it follow the USA primarily and not any other country. If the title were to be changed to "The American Nuclear Family" or such. TheIronWill (talk) 21:24, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Congrats
I'd like to congratulate everyone for the current, apparently stable version of the article. I think it is far more balanced and informative than it was a mere month ago! Kudos! DavidBailey 15:30, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Dismissive of Gay relationships, missing a wider analysis of the term
I feel personally that this article may have been written to be balanced, but I must come from a different point of view and state I don't feel it is. I feel that it dismisses homosexual relationships, emphasizing it only affects a 'minority', and that is not accepted in most countries, but using these two points I feel it puts gay relationships in a negative light even if it wasn't intended. Further I would like to point out a wider discussion about the nuclear family, in that for some Socialists, the nuclear family is by-product of capitalism, and is therefore merely the 'Bourgeois Family’. This ‘family’ in Socialist Feminist thought is the origins of Patriarchy and the systematic oppression of women. We assume as westerners that the nuclear family is the most desirable and normal, but in pre-capitalist society families were in a communal setting and often polygamous. Judeo-Christianity in the west has created the structure of validating sexual intercourse through a ceremony of a man and a woman. However ‘Bourgeois Marriage’ was the contract between two families merging/exchanging capital and assets see dowry system. This article should explore a much wider context, which it currently doesn’t and is based on western assumptions about the natural structure of the family we call the nuclear family. I do not dismiss any good intentions of this article or homophobic intent, there very good articles in wikipedia about homosexuality, however this article isn’t one of them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PiousTrent (talk • contribs)

 * The extensions proposed are excellent, i tried to extend it some time ago, but was prevented by the common understanding of the term, nuclear family. A wider sociological examination is required. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.41.211.99 (talk • contribs)

 * The article quotes George Murdock's description of NFs: "It contains adults of both sexes, at least two of whom maintain a socially approved sexual relationship..." This permits polygamy, but not monogamous gay relationships(?...) I, personally, consider gay couples with children "nuclear families," and I think most Americans anyway do. userX 23:30, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

This can also be seen in the DOMH article made famous by Al Frankin here http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_10/sr10_246.pdf on page 10 uses the definition of a nuclear family without referencing a gender for the parent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.39.197.90 (talk) 22:34, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

 * This article does seem to lack NPV in regards to families of same-sex spouses. Encyclopedia Britannica addresses this issue frankly: "nuclear family, also called elementary family, in sociology and anthropology, a group of people who are united by ties of partnership and parenthood and consisting of a pair of adults and their socially recognized children. Typically, but not always, the adults in a nuclear family are married. Although such couples are most often a man and a woman, the definition of the nuclear family has expanded with the advent of same-sex marriage. Children in a nuclear family may be the couple’s biological or adopted offspring."  I suggest more neutral language is required in the lead paragraph of this article and elsewhere. 74.83.14.59 (talk) 19:54, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

 * The article is not complete—not by a long shot. It can certainly stand some expansion in the direction of same-sex and other definitions. Binksternet (talk) 20:30, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Sentence moved from divorce section

 * Society assumes these families can only be fixed through another marriage, and the single parent status is only temporary and can be overcome.

This statement is unsupported and seems fairly POV to me. It's here until someone can rewrite it to include references. DavidBailey 12:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Frankly, upon reading the whole divorce section I think it's not that relevant or well-written to begin with. I guess the question is, what happens to a nuclear family when a divorce happens. If it's no longer a nuclear family by definition, then it isn't "challenging" the nuclear family, it simply ceases to be one. If it still is a nuclear family, then it still isn't challenging the nuclear family, because it still is one. Anyone else think it needs to stay, if so, what does it need to state? DavidBailey 13:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Here's the whole divorce section. If it needs to be in the article, it needs to written better than this.

 * The number of single parent families in society is challenging the idea of the nuclear family. Divorce has given rise to different living arrangements for parents and chidren. These post-nuclear families have been described as “broken because the marriage bond has been broken”

DavidBailey 16:06, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Contemporary Perception
Since this article began some have inserted commentary on the family itself. For instance, this section is more of a commentary on family itself rather than on the nuclear family structure. If there's no objection, I'll move it to the 'Family' article instead. DavidBailey 16:16, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * This has been moved to the family article. DavidBailey 03:15, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion from a wiki-newbie: remove parochial reference in the opening paragraph
I'm new here. I cannot figure out how to edit the opening paragraph.

I suggest that the penultimate word in the opening section should be amended from:

"[...] in the nation."

to:

"[...] in that nation."

Pendant 08:04, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Nuclear family
…In main Article: Is stated[ can be any size, as long as the family can support itself and,.( the continuation is in of course 'the main article. And in the Article describes what in early years is the definition of Kernel or nut. Perhaps I may explain the comparison on this talk page of Nuclear and Kernal and Nut. Property of an existing, Pertaining time, a gathered entity that has a defereniteness's, though is structured to the share of it's course. Meaning a Hole structural balance that has keeping though expresses a reason and notification of a quality. I was typing A Lending though in study the choice was to be a whole which may be in a security in same sense as security, though may be extended within a reachable terming.David George DeLancey (talk) 01:06, 4 September 2008 (UTC) …My apologies on defereniteness's i actually checked it three times and wanted it without the apostrophe and was spelling it deferentness which now I realize was suppose to differentnessDavid George DeLancey (talk) 01:18, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Incomplete reference
Can someone complete reference 4 (Williams et al.)? It's a good reference, but the citation lacks page number. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sverrebm (talk • contribs) 13:22, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Partial references
I'm not certain what happened to this text, but the references have been lost and the content is at odds with recent information from the US Census bureau. I'm placing the sections there to encourage editing them back into a form that can be inserted back into the article. Thanks. DavidBailey (talk) 21:06, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

 * According to a 1954 issue of McCall's magazine: "[t]he most impressive and the most heartening feature of this change is that men, women, children are achieving it together. They are creating this new and warmer way of life not as women alone or men alone, isolated from one another, but as a family sharing a common experience."

 * Some sociologists studying families and their formation, attempting to detail the changes in fami
 * Increase in sole occupancy dwellings and smaller family sizes
 * Average age of marriage being older
 * Average number of children decreasing and first birth at later age
 * The historical pattern of fertility. From baby boom to baby bust (instability)
 * The aging population. The trend towards greater life expectancy.
 * Rising divorce rates and people who will never marry.

Henry Ford's "8 hour day, $5 week"
Henry Ford famously paid his workers $5 per 'day', not per week. Straight from ford.com:

http://www.ford.com/about-ford/heritage/milestones/5dollaraday/677-5-dollar-a-day

$5 per week, or $1 per day, was a miserable wage even in Ford's pre-inflationary times. I'm changing "week" to "day". Heian-794 (talk) 17:27, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Single-parent families
Roughly 75% (or percent) of all children in the United States will spend at least some time in a single-parent household.

What does "some time" mean? What "single-parent household" will they spend time in? Their own home? Their aunt's house? And it's not referenced. I deleted the phrase as vague. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.203.221.17 (talk) 03:33, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Restored Article
I restored the article, an anon user had removed virtually all of the article on 3/10/09 --RLent (talk) 15:14, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Wolfgang Haak
The article has the name of the co-leader of the dig put into brackets,This person does not seem like he is very important, maybe for this dig he was but not in general.I would ask if it would be okay to remove his name, because the addition of his name does not seem to add very much to the article.It seems like someone might have wanted to give this person more light ( i cant think of the word, kinda like famous,but that would fit for him) but the addition of his name doesn't particularly help the page.Thank you Durga Dido (talk) 15:24, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

According to the 2000 census, "nuclear families (mother, father, and children living together) now constitute fewer than 25 percent of U.S. households."

1. Joe Queenana, "Nuclear Dad: Last of My Kind," New York Times (December 23, 2001), Sect. 9, p. 1.

and

2. Allan C. Ornstein and Francis P. Hunkins, Curriculum: Foundation, Principles, and Issues, Boston, MA (2009) p. 153.

"The fact is, parent-child interaction has declined 40 percent in the last 20 years, 75 of women with children were working in 2000 compared to 18 percent in the 1950's, and the number of latchkey children, ages 6 to 14, has soared to 70 percent."

1. Allan C. Ornstein. Teaching and Schooling in America: Pre- and Post-September 11 (Boston: Alllyn and Bacon, 2003).

and

2. Allan C. Ornstein and Francis P. Hunkins, Curriculum: Foundation, Principles, and Issues, Boston, MA (2009) p. 154.

24.174.20.33 (talk) 06:45, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

First paragraph
The last sentence in the first paragraph seems like it is trying to imply that the nuclear family is the most common living arrangement in the united states, it no longer is (by a small margin) as childless couples are more common. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.126.69.92 (talk) 04:25, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 24.8.166.146, 22 July 2011
I would like to request an edit for the first line FROM "A nuclear family is defined as a family group consisting of a father and mother and their children, all exclusively sharing living quarters" TO "A nuclear family consists of one or more children living with two parents who are married to one another and are biological or adoptive parents to all children in the family." Per the definition in the 2010 study done by the Center for Disease Control; reference link below - PAGE 6,7 "Selected Results" section

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_10/sr10_246.pdf

(support to the above) http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nhis.htm These are definitions that are currently in use not only by the CDC, but also in congress and by lawmakers. GreasyMonk (talk) 22:23, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

❌. The definition of nuclear family is not only in the hands of the U.S. government. More interpretations exist, international ones, and ones that are older and more established in the literature. Binksternet (talk) 00:23, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Sort-of Done. I added a sentence clarifying it. Though I did not use your source, Encyclopedia Britannica acknowledges this concern specifically, and a textbook referenced cites an inclusive definition as well. I think we can conclude that for the time being, both definitions are in use.Theinactivist (talk • contribs) 08:31, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

And Al Franken's interpretation is not a reliable source. Also, on page 15 of that study, it provides a pie chart showing the make-up of family types in the study. 48.4% are shown to be "Nuclear." However, the text on the page which elaborates on the pie chart describes that group to be "'traditional' nuclear famil[ies]." Since when has anything other than a family headed by a mother and father ever been described as "traditional?" Given that this study began in 2001 when there was no such thing as gay marriage in the U.S., it's odd that the CDC would include anything other than a mother and father under "nuclear." 67.233.224.204 (talk) 05:50, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

 * Yes, I think when we're looking at older definitions, it's going to be difficult to say that 'two parents married to each other' was intended by the speaker to mean anything other than father and mother. The reason the speaker may not have stated father and mother specifically, is they couldn't conceive at the time a definition of married parents that included same-sex couples. Compare similarly to the US constitution, where 'all men are created equal' carried the implicit assumption 'except for those who are enslaved'. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:01, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

 * The text itself was written some time between 2007 and October 2010. Just because they chose not to study same-sex parents does not mean they didn't conceive of their existence, an assumption I would consider dubious for any time at least since 1970.  I could conversely say that since the study does not distinguish parent gender in any of the categories except single parent (and then only for biological parents), they assumed that factors such as legal recognition of both parents to the child is more important to child well-being than gender of the parents.  The CDC should at least be expected to know of the existence of unrecognized same-sex families.  (Also as a note, the phrase "all men are created equal" was in fact interpreted by some at that time to renounce slavery.) Theinactivist (talk • contribs) 20:11, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Conservatives and nuclear family
American conservatives are really defenders of nuclear family? I am not an American, but, for what I know about American conservatism, they dont't seem to have any problem with enlarged families, with strong relations between sons, parents, grandparents, cousins, uncles, etc (eventually living in the same home). Yes, they are in favour of "traditional nuclear family", but the operative words seems to be the "traditional", not the "nuclear" (they are against non-tradional families, not against enlarged families)--81.84.188.236 (talk) 01:18, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

"Financially viable"?
This sentence in the first paragraph is rather mystifying to me, especially since the citation is not freely available:
 * With the emergence of proto-industrialization and early capitalism, the nuclear family became a financially viable social unit.

I would expect that a nuclear family could exist before the industrial era, and this article's section on history gives no mention of earlier challenges. To be blunt: What on earth is this sentence trying to say? —dgies tc 09:54, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

 * I think it is trying to say that one man's income could support the family, when in earlier times it often took the whole family working to make a living. Binksternet (talk) 10:09, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I suppose this should be clarified. I guess what it's implying is that prior to proto-industrialization (PS, the wiki article on this topic is worthless and uncited) you basically saw either communal village living or vassals living with their lord, either of which violating nuclear family definitions by sharing living space. We need a more robust definition of what caused this change and when. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:43, 24 February 2012 (UTC):
 * Or grandparents, sons, grandsons, uncles and nephews living together (what I suppose is the typical non-nuclear family in pre-industrial ages--81.84.110.204 (talk) 15:44, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Compare and contrast.
Second Sentence: "This is in contrast to a polygamous family, single-parent family, and to the larger extended family. "

There are more ways to have a multiple-parent families than with Polygamy. These include Polyandry and Polyamory, probably others. Perhaps this could be modified to be closer to: "This is in contrast to families with a single parent, the larger extended family, and other family arrangements containing more than two parents."

I didn't read much further through the article than the intro and a bit of the first section, but if there are any other references to polygamous families these should be changed to a more neutral term. 216.185.68.30 (talk) 19:36, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

 * I made the change to "more than two parents". Binksternet (talk) 23:08, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

The Real Nuclear Family
The term 'nuclear family' was coined in the 1950's in the new nuclear age. It was used to describe a modern, middle class, 'perfect' family consisting of a married man and a woman and their biological children, usually one male child and one female child. The term was mostly used during the height of the Cold War during the 1950's through 1970's period and had largely disappeared from usage by the 1980's. The term did not associate itself with extended, adopted, step-families and homosexual relationships as those types of relationships did not lend themselves to the 'perfect' family concept and, during that period, carried significant social stigma's. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.253.249.8 (talk • contribs)

 * I bet that some other people agree with you about that, but the books on the subject are conclusive that the term has nothing to do with the nuclear age from the late 1940s through the 1960s.
 * You might be surprised to find that the term "nuclear family" was in use many decades before the atomic bomb was developed. Sociologists used the term in the 19th century, more than 100 years before the atomic bomb. Binksternet (talk) 16:18, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Changes to family formation
The first two paragraphs of this section seem to conflict; or perhaps I'm misreading or it needs rephrasing. The result seems to convey to me that a majority of children in the U.S. live in a nuclear family, yet the second paragraph conveys that a small minority do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slamond (talk • contribs) 19:12, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Freudien Theories of Identification and Their Derivatives
This article is improperly cited. The text seems to imply that the citation is from a publication by Freud himself entitled "Theories of Identification and Their Derivatives", as it says "in [ibid] 'he' states ...", though the actual author is not named and the source is not included in the list of references.

The cited article, "Freudian Theories of Identification and Their Derivatives" by Urie Bronfenbrenner, was published nearly 60 years ago. That the publication is so old should be taken into account since it seems to be included only to discredit the argument that "[the nuclear family is] central to stability in modern society", or to provide evidence that such a position "has been challenged". However, as cited it does not constitute evidence of a challenge, but is merely a concession of ignorance on the part of a researcher of 1960.

The Functionalist perspective of the family makes exactly the claim that the nuclear family is the "basic building block" of society and is written about extensively. The omission of discussion of support of the claim and the inclusion of such poor example of challenges are evidence non-neutrality of the original contributor of this paragraph, especially given that the opening sentence seeks to associate the claim with a particular political group.73.156.246.197 (talk) 15:47, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

New addition ideas
I am thinking of things that could be added to this Wikipedia article to make it better. I would like to add what the nuclear family looks like today how it has or hasn't changed and the pros and cons of nuclear family's and possibly if I can find more information it would be interesting to expand on the expanded family section and just compare it more to the nuclear family's. These are some articles I plan to use but if anyone has any suggestions please let me know.

Bibliography LaFave, Daniel, and Duncan Thomas. “Extended Families and Child Well-Being.” Duke University, 0AD, pp. 1–33. http://www.colby.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/73/2012/04/extfamily-mar12.pdf

Gangopadhyay, Soumik, and Soma Sur. “Burden of NCDs among Nuclear Families.” Journal of Health Management, vol. 19, no. 4, Sept. 2017, pp. 602–609., doi:10.1177/0972063417727623. http://journals.sagepub.com.aurarialibrary.idm.oclc.org/doi/10.1177/0972063417727623#articleCitationDownloadContainer

“1. The American family today.” Pew Research Center's Social & Demographic Trends Project, 17 Dec. 2015, www.pewsocialtrends.org/2015/12/17/1-the-american-family-today/.

Laurenfeiman (talk) 20:39, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Changes to North American Conservatism
Is nobody here going to talk about he massive changes made to the "North American Conservatism" section in April of 2018, all by one user, all referencing one source?

This phrase isn't in the reference and from what I can tell isn't supported by it: "The numbers of nuclear families is slowly dwindling in the US as more women pursue higher education, develop professional lives, and delay having children until later in their life.[25]" It's probably right, but isn't due to just women, but also men and again isn't in the reference.

This phrase just like the other is not supported by the reference: "Children and marriage have become less appealing as many women continue to face societal, familial, and/or peer pressure to give up their education and successful career to focus on stabilizing the home.[25]" There is no talk of how appealing things are, nor is there any reference to peer pressure. This was wholly made up by the author.

This sentence makes claims not even supported by this article: "As diversity in the United States continues to increase, it is becoming difficult for the classically traditional family unit—a heterosexual couple of the same race and ethnicity with two children—to stay the norm[25]". This article itself doesn't define nuclear families as being of the same race and isn't about "classically traditional families". Also the conclusion in that sentence is not in the reference.

"calling the relevancy of North American Conservatism into question." LOL. Really, wikipedia?

This whole section is interesting and probably supported by the data but just doesn't seem to be relevant in this section. Perhaps there is a demographic section that could be created: "Data from 2014 also suggests that single parents and the likelihood of children living with one is also determined by race. Pew Research Center has found that 54% of African-American individuals will be single parents compared to 19% of Caucasian individuals.[25]Several factors account for the differences in family structure including economic and social class. Differences in education level also change the amount of single parents. In 2014, those with less than a high school education are 46% more likely to be a single parent compared to 12% who have graduated college.[25]".

I have a few other issues but this is the crux of it. I personally think the areas highlighted above should be deleted.

Truthseekerleaker (talk) 13:55, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Stone age burial
The history section opens with this: "DNA extracted from bones and teeth in a 4,600-year-old Stone Age burial in Germany has provided the earliest evidence for the social recognition of a family consisting of two parents with multiple children."

The source also states that they were all interred simultaneously after being killed in a violent raid.

While the 4 are arranged as a nuclear family in death, there was also 12 other people buried nearby. To me, it doesn't seem genuinely relevant to the concept of a nuclear family. We don't know anything about their living family structure or household (if they even had a household). Pythagimedes (talk) 03:29, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Nonsensical criticism
The criticism makes limited sense (about "the Extended Family" being more common historically, therefore Nuclear is "not traditional") in three ways: Zilch-nada (talk) 17:29, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Disputing the Nuclear family as "not traditional" when we consider its prevalence since 13th century England, and as the most common family structure in the US from the mid-20th century, seems to be undue weight.
 * The Nuclear Family as a "nucleus" of father-mother-children, is still the most prevalent family structure in America;, with 70 percent living in two-parent families in 2005. Taking an extended family by its literal meaning of "extension", Extended families and Two-parent families are not mutually exclusive; they may consist of such a nucleus.'''
 * The second paragraph in "Changes to family formation", the article writes that there is no prominent style of family in America. But, as sourced above, it is still clearly true of the vast prevalence of two-parent families in general (70 percent.) This is a clear inconsistency with data sourced in the article.

Why does this article seem like is was written by someone seething over their keyboard?
Looking at all the references here I just have to assume this is the work of the "just love. don't judge" people. I've been a lifelong atheist, but I've never been in your face about it, but everyone has known a person who identified as an atheist and would constantly be confrontational about it. They would get into arguments with people randomly and would just never let up about their moral superiority and rightness of it all. Then there's the same exact archetype of dude who does the same with Marxism/communism/socialism. They make it their whole identity and use it as some entitlement or license to high-horse everyone.

I just came here to possibly find an unbiased book that explains the history of the nuclear family and why it has a name relating to physics. Basically, what I'm saying is, with all due respect, the lgbtq+ community is becoming the cringy atheist anarchist of the 2020s. 2600:1700:7491:D490:18F4:2CA2:87C3:B2C3 (talk) 20:43, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Merriam-Webster can help with the history of the term. (Short version: Coined in the 1920s, based on on "nucleus".) The Way We Never Were by Stephanie Coontz is an excellent book on the history of the family in the U.S. Schazjmd   (talk)  20:54, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
 * And I see that the article does discuss the name (rather verbosely): While the phrase dates approximately from the Atomic Age, the term "nuclear" is not used here in the context of nuclear warfare, nuclear power, nuclear fission or nuclear fusion; rather, it arises from a more general use of the noun nucleus, itself originating in the Latin nux, meaning "nut", i.e. the core of something – thus, the nuclear family refers to all members of the family being part of the same core rather than directly to atomic weapons. Schazjmd   (talk)  21:06, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Ah, thank you for the response, I will look into if you say it's a good resource. I don't want to judge a book by it's cover, but to me "The Way We Never Were: American Families and the Nostalgia Trap", with a sensational and negative title it seems like it's going to be a bit biased.
 * Thanks I did read that part, but I was wondering more who originally came up with the term and if they were trying to develop some kind of model(as in approximation) in relating the family to particle physics and if they had more writings and expanding on it for more comparisons about how societies operate, free electrons, social order and crystalline structure and stuff like that.
 * I was just looking for some basic information and was kind of suprised about how contentious this is. 2600:1700:7491:D490:18F4:2CA2:87C3:B2C3 (talk) 21:38, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
 * As I recall (it's been awhile since I read it), Coontz's book is countering the Happy Days mythology in which the TV versions of families for a brief time in the 1950s became culturally embedded as not only the way families were but they were supposed to be by examining what families and family life were really like over the past two centuries. Schazjmd   (talk)  21:42, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Distinctive line or blurry line from extended families?
It seems to me that a nuclear family consists of a husband, a wife, and their child/ren, all living under one roof. An extended family, in contrast, has more family members living together with them. This could simply be an in-law. For example: a husband, a wife, her mother, and the wife's children (the older mother's grandchildren) and they all live in the same house. Or we could have more people living in there. A husband and wife, their grown daughter, as well as her husband and their children (grandparents own house; their adult daughter, that adult's spouse, and their grand/children all live together sharing one house). We could have a much bigger house where you have multiple families living together at once, such as an Iroquois longhouse. We could have a different sort of situation, like three brothers living together paying rent, and one's widowed and raising his child with his brothers (the child's uncles). It could be three women who are friends all raising their own children together- they're single moms, but not really. It could be a polycule all living together with their children. These are all examples of a non-nuclear family set-up, all of which could be called an extended family (depending on your definition, the "single-mom" trio and/or polycule may not count).

It seems to be that for some people, step-parent and monogamous gay parents also do not count. Though we still have the same situation where you have two parents and their children living under one roof. That seems to skew the definition a bit towards being heteronormative. I'm not seeing anything where the women's income seems to count. That doesn't mean that people don't use it in that way, to indicate a male breadwinner, but it does show that for this article currently it's about a fully genetic family living with their children. It doesn't matter if she's an actress and he's an at-home parent, so long as if all the children raised are biologically there's, it's a nuclear family. That means that if they ever adopt a child, it's not a nuclear family. I don't agree with that definition personally, but that's where the article stands right now.

The issue here that I want to focus on is the distaste of a presumed picture-perfect 1950s Caucasian family that is skewing the image. Most Caucasian-American conservative families actually do include relatives. Having an in-law/parent/grandparent or adult brother/uncle or adult sister/aunt living together is not too unusual. We see many representations in family sitcoms. To say it in a way some people will understand, "it's a very white thing to do". In actual, real-life family dynamics, if the children do not live with their grandparent or uncle/aunt (or even if they do) they are supposed to visit and occasionally stay with them. That can be anything from:

1. Using family as unpaid babysitters when something comes up 2. Staying with a family member while on a few week vacation 3. Letting your kid spend a (or all) summer/s over at their relatives. 4. Letting your child hang out with their cousins every weekend, putting them into the care of their aunt/uncle

This all falls in that realm of a picture-perfect white family. Some are slightly less perfect and weird, but they still fall into the typical family models pre-2010s American Caucasians can expect. If someone's trying to follow the traditional Caucasian-family lifestyle, then you don't want to take near relatives away. If an extended family includes visitation, then most follow an extended family lifestyle.

The deviation comes from when you have two married couples living together, any of the other possible arrangements I mentioned farther above, and more. Having three aunts stay together in a married couple's house is unusual. Having two unrelated couples with their offspring together is unusual and may or may not fit into the extended family definition. Newly weds staying at the groom's house and the wife is raising her newborn there is...not an unusual situation and sometimes considered an imperfect one.

There is also another important deviation. The strictly nuclear family. What's trending now is parents who are actively preventing grandparents and their siblings from taking part in their grandchildren's/nieces/nephews lives. This is often done under the belief that those other family members are "narcissistic" or otherwise have a lifestyle or moral values that they not only don't want to impart onto their children, but also that they don't want their children to even come into contact with these individuals. This is done by Americans of many races these days, including white people. I would say that some types on the political right speak out against this sort of intense family shunning. Combating the need for complete individual freedom (like breaking away from parents and siblings so that they have no idea what's going on in their own life whatsoever) is something that they fight against sometimes. The right to interact with grandchildren and nieces/nephews despite political differences. The fight against personal estrangement. The family must live on, but ideally grown children move out of the house into their own and get married and have children. But that doesn't mean they break away completely.

That strict family idea, where a bread-winning father and his house-keeping wife and their children all live under one roof and shun the rest of the family is not that 1950s ideal. It's a family that has shunned their relatives from intervening with them. A lot of cult or deep-Christian converts end up in this situation. It happens with other religions too. Sometimes the husband and wife roles are circumstantial and not part of their value system. Atheists can end up having that sort of family dynamic. But again, it can be just for religion, but politics and lifestyle differences as well.

TL'DR: 1950s-2000s White-Americans have an extended family system according to some definitions of the differences between nuclear families and extended families. True nuclear families are typically due to religious cults, extreme personal independence, or strong distaste of family. True nuclear families are becoming more common nowadays due to encouragement to abandon narcissistic relatives. It was not a feature of a cereal-box picture perfect family because the parents are supposed to keep in contact with their grown siblings and parents and let their children bond with their aunts, uncles, cousins, and grandparents. Sometimes they are even allowed to live together: children staying over at their grandparents or aunts/uncles for extended or short periods of time is expected and sometimes even encouraged. Therefore we have a definition clash as to what a nuclear family is. Is it a genetic family consisting of a married male and female and their offspring living under one roof with absolutely no close-relatives living with them? Or is it about a married male and female and their offspring living under one roof with no contact and intervention from relatives interacting with those children? Does it change from a nuclear family to an extended family the moment a grandfather dies and the widowed grandmother moves in to support herself? Does it change from a nuclear family to an extended family the moment the husband's father apologizes for going out to buy milk and never coming back and he's allowed to talk to his grandchildren now? Does it change from an extended family to a nuclear family when two parents and their children move out of town and, due to the year and technology available, use only phones to keep in contact? Since the 1950s ideal includes talking to other relatives and the 2020s ideal does not include talking to other relatives, what is a nuclear family? Is it just a heteronormative monogamous family or is it stricter than that?Wacape (talk) 20:41, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * do you have any changes (with, of course, supporting sources) to suggest? If your criticism is that the article fails to adequately and neutrally summarize reliable mainstream sources on the topic, we need specifics. (And I'll point out that an article talk page is not a forum for discussing the topic, only the article.)  Schazjmd   (talk)  20:51, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Merge proposal
I propose to merge Conjugal family here. While a distinct subtype of a nuclear family (the conjugal family requires married parents, an example of a nuclear family that is not conjugal is a single mother), most attributes (independence from other relatives) are common. While conjugal word implies marriage, the modern use skews to committed relationships in general (cf. Scott 2014 as referenced in the Conjugal family). Викидим (talk) 18:29, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Nuclear family


text:
User:Kop

Track my prior edits through: User:66.93.114.95 --Kop 04:58, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

title: User:Kop


text:
User:Kuldar Vahtra

Na Zdrovje

title: User:Kuldar Vahtra


text:
User talk:Kuldar Vahtra

Say hello to me

title: User talk:Kuldar Vahtra


text:
A Grief Observed

A Grief Observed is a collection of C. S. Lewis's reflections on his experience of bereavement following the death of his wife, Joy Davidman, in 1960. The book was published in 1961 under the pseudonym N.W. Clerk because Lewis wished to avoid the connection. Though republished in 1963 under his own name after his death, the text still refers to his wife as “H” (her seldom used first name was Helen).

The book is compiled from the four notebooks used by Lewis to vent and explore his grief. He illustrates the everyday trials of life without Joy and explores fundamental questions of faith and theodicy. Lewis' stepson (Joy's son) Douglas Gresham pointed out in his 1994 introduction that the indefinite article 'a' in the title makes it clear that Lewis' grief is not the quintessential experience of the loss of a loved one but just one individual's perspective among countless others.

The book helped inspire a 1985 television movie, Shadowlands, as well as a 1993 film of the same name.

Summary
A Grief Observed explores the processes undergone by the human brain and mind over the course of grieving. The book questions the nature of grief and whether or not returning to normality afterward is even possible within the realm of human existence on earth. Based on a personal journal that he kept, Lewis refers to his wife as "H" throughout the series of reflections, and he reveals that she had died from cancer only three years after their marriage.

Extremely candid, the book details the anger and bewilderment that he felt towards God after H's death as well as his impressions of life without her. The period of his bereavement was marked by a process of moving in and out of various stages of grief and remembrance, and it becomes obvious that it heavily influenced his spirituality.

In fact, Lewis ultimately comes to a revolutionary redefinition of his own characterization of God: experiencing gratitude for having received and experienced the gift of a true love.

The book is divided into four parts. Each is headed with a Roman numeral and has a collection of excerpts from his journals documenting scattered impressions and his continuously-evolving state of mind.

Reactions
Lewis exhibits doubt and asks many fundamental questions of faith throughout the work. Because of his candid account of his grief and the doubts he voices, some of his admirers found it troubling. They were disinclined to believe that the Christian writer could be so close to despair. Some thought that it might be a work of fiction. Others, such as his critics, suggested that he was wisest when he was overcome with despair.

When Lewis was first attempting to publish his manuscript, his literary agent, Spencer Curtis Brown, sent it to the publishing company Faber and Faber. One of the directors of the company at the time was T.S. Eliot, who found the book intensely moving.

Madeleine L’Engle, an American author best known for her young adult fiction, wrote a foreword for the 1989 printing of the book. In the foreword, she speaks of her own grief after losing her husband and notes the similarities and differences. She makes a point similar to Douglas Gresham's: each grief is different, even if they bear similarities.

Relation to other works
The book is often compared to another book by Lewis, The Problem of Pain, written approximately twenty years before A Grief Observed.

The Problem of Pain seeks to provide theory behind the pain in the world. A Grief Observed is the reality of the theory in the former book.

It was more difficult to apply the theories that he posited to a pain with which he was so intimately involved. At first, it is hard for Lewis to see the reason of his theories during the anguish of his wife's death but throughout the book, the gradual reacceptance of his theories and the reacceptance of the necessity of suffering can be seen.

Lewis' difficulty is specifically reflected in the following passage from the book: "Is anything more certain than that in all those vast times and spaces, if I were allowed to search them, I should nowhere find her face, her voice, her touch? She died. She is dead. Is the word so difficult to learn?"

Also, Lewis' ultimate resolution of his dilemma is partly articulated in the book: "I will not, if I can help it, shin up either the feathery or the prickly tree. Two widely different convictions press more and more on my mind. One is that the Eternal Vet is even more inexorable and the possible operations even more painful than our severest imaginings can forebode. But the other, that 'all shall be well, and all shall be well, and all manner of thing shall be well'".

title: A Grief Observed


text:
Talk:Self number

Any applications? - Highwind

 * Probably not. But mathematicians and number aficionados are very interested in them just the same. PrimeFan 22:50, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[Comment deleted. I was looking at the (ambiguous) words and not the numbers. Pronoun reference problem fixed.] Major Danby, 18 Aug 2005

Colombian and Columbian numbers
I'm embarrassed about this, but I have to admit it. For the first draft of this article, I wrote "self number or Colombian number," where I should have written "self number or Columbian number." That's the spelling given both by Mathworld and the OEIS. It's an alternate term, but there is still a lot of older literature that uses it, so I apologize for screwing it up. PrimeFan 18:27, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

k
What does the k stand for in the formula? --Shandris 07:11, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

 * I think it's just a convenient running variable. m might be just as suitable. The reason n is not used is that it would lead one to expect that the recurrence relation gives all self numbers, when in fact it just gives an incomplete though infinite list. PrimeFan 15:57, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

"Other number"
Is there a technical term? ie, "The -blah- of 30 in base ten is 24 because 24+2+4=30.". Also, why aren't all single-digit numbers self-numbers? ✍ (talk) 17:40, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

 * I don't know a term for the other number(s). There may be more than one, for example for 101 = 91+9+1 = 100+1+0+0. Even single-digit numbers d > 0 cannot be self numbers, because d/2 can be used as the other number: d/2+d/2 = d. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:08, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

 * According to Trotter - Charlene numbers, Kaprekar who first described the self number called such an other number a generator, so "A generator of 30 in base ten is 24 because 24+2+4=30." Trewal (talk) 10:28, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Kaprekar's expression is wrong?
I found if I use Kaprekar's expression to compute self number, 29 is also self number. But 19 is a generator of 29. So anybody know what's wrong with this problem? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.22.21.11 (talk) 11:28, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

 * I assume you refer to Self number. When I use it I get the self numbers given in the lead: 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 20, 31, 42, 53, 64, 75, 86, 97, 108, 110, 121, 132, 143, 154, 165, 176, 187, 198, 209, 211, 222, 233, 244, 255, 266, 277, 288, 299, 310, 312, 323, 334, 345, 356, 367, 378, 389, 400, 411, 413, 424, 435, 446, 457, 468, 479, 490, 501, 512, 514, 525. There is no 29 so I guess you evaluated the expression incorrectly. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:21, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

title: Talk:Self number


text:
Talk:Elizabeth Bowen

Untitled
I've restored the mention of the ML lists here, only because this is a stub and there's nothing else to indicate that she's an important 20th century novelist as opposed to some random hack. When this article gets fleshed out we can remove the ML mention. Gamaliel 05:10, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I don't get it. Random House reprinting her book means she's not a hack? Are they the arbiters now?

I read your discussion of this issue at Modern Library. Look, I've never heard of this list (I'm English), but it seems to me it's the same sort of thing as the Everyman Library or similar. It's simply a means publishers use to make money out of (usually) PD books. I don't know why you think Wikipedia should shill for them. It doesn't prove the book had merit. It proves Random House thought they could make a buck out of it.Dr Zen 08:34, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I've expanded the article a bit and removed the ML reference. Filiocht 14:24, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC)

Removed 'spam'
Removed 'spam'.

24.98.6.151 23:13, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Is this how I sign? Using Firefox.

Strangury
For the time being, I deleted "She may have suffered from strangury in 1912-1920" from the section headed Assessment. First, it's not sourced (and a quick search turns up nothing except this article to support the claim); second, it doesn't form an appropriate part of the Assessment section; third, I am not sure it's notable - I am not familiar with the disease, but if she suffered from headaches or a cough or indigestion during that period, I am not sure it would be notable absent some explicit impact on her life or work.KD Tries Again (talk) 20:42, 10 September 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Elizabeth Bowen. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141026094659/http://www.oxfordshireblueplaques.org.uk/plaques/bowen.html to http://www.oxfordshireblueplaques.org.uk/plaques/bowen.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141026094659/http://www.oxfordshireblueplaques.org.uk/plaques/bowen.html to http://www.oxfordshireblueplaques.org.uk/plaques/bowen.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:52, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Elizabeth Bowen. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20131222000935/http://www.irelandxo.com/node/9737 to http://www.irelandxo.com/node/9737
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150720224126/http://www.aickmandata.com/aickmanantho.html to http://www.aickmandata.com/aickmanantho.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:01, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Death poem
Did she write a poem about death? 2A00:23C6:EB8F:CA01:5957:AC7:DCD1:70E3 (talk) 14:17, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Elizabeth Bowen


text:
Talk:World's Fittest Man

World's Fittest Man survived vfd; I didn't see a consensus to delete. A merge with Paddy Doyle was suggested among other things. For the details see: Votes for deletion/World's Fittest Man -- Wile E. Heresiarch 05:10, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

title: Talk:World's Fittest Man


text:
User:Ewiki~enwiki

Sorry if i ask stupid questions and stuff but i am new to wikipedia.--Ewiki 05:12, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

title: User:Ewiki~enwiki


text:
User talk:Ewiki~enwiki

Deleted Pages
Ewiki- Your pages were deleted because their content was not encyclopedic. If you have questions about how wikipedia is used I would suggest the Help desk. Also, User:Hadal's edits before were not vandalism, he was merely warning you that if you continue to create "test" articles you could be banned. If you need to mess around with the wiki markup, the best place is the Sandbox. I hope this helps you. - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 05:19, Aug 6, 2004 (UTC)

I am not a vandal, but your edits to Talk:John Kerry certainly qualify as vandalism; continuing to act in such a manner may result in your being temporarily blocked from editing. Your antics aren't fooling anyone, so please stop. If you'd like to learn more about contributing here, please see our welcome page. Thanks. -- Hadal 05:20, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Ewiki, please stop calling people "vandals". It is not nice and is considered a personal attack. Again, as Hadal said, your edits to Talk:John Kerry are vandalism and may cause you to be blocked from editing. Thank you. Guanaco 05:28, Aug 6, 2004 (UTC)

Ewiki, if you blank Talk:John Kerry one more time, I'm going to block you from editing. —Stormie 05:29, Aug 6, 2004 (UTC)

Ewiki, it seems that you are confused about how to use wikipedia i would suggest reading some how tos and the help section by clicking the help link the the nav bar. plese be aware that other edits to those pages were not vandalism but your recurrent revrting back to your version was vandalism, if you have any questions about wikipedia please feel free to leave a message on User_talk:Ryan524 or contact an admin for further assistance. And this page is for other users ti write messages to you please do not blank it like you have, thanks.--Ryan B. (Talk, contributions)  07:14, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Your account will be renamed
Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called Ewiki. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Ewiki~enwiki that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name. If you think you might own all of the accounts with this name and this message is in error, please visit Special:MergeAccount to check and attach all of your accounts to prevent them from being renamed.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours, Keegan Peterzell Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation 23:49, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Renamed
 This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can |log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: . -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 12:44, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:Ewiki~enwiki


text:
User talk:Kop

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Here are some useful links in case you haven't already found them;

 * How to edit a page
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style

If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! →Raul654 05:15, Aug 6, 2004 (UTC)

Emacs caption
Please see User_talk:Ke4roh for my reply. -- ke4roh 02:16, Aug 23, 2004 (UTC)

More at User_talk:Ke4roh -- ke4roh 11:34, Aug 23, 2004 (UTC)

Still more at User_talk:Ke4roh. When we finish the conversation, we can copy it over here (obliterating these silly notes) so you have it on your talk page, too. -- ke4roh 16:08, Aug 24, 2004 (UTC)

Your remark re. Copyleft article
Hi Kop, I tried to address your remark/question on Talk:Copyleft - I'd be happy to know your reaction on that! --Francis Schonken 08:21, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Image:Eddie the Head.jpg
I'm not clear on how the Possibly unfree images page is supposed to work, but I notice that the Eddie the Head image page is flagged possibly unfree and yet does not appear on the possibly unfree page. Something happened in this edit --kop 06:10, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot. I restored the mistakenly removed discussion. roozbeh 22:37, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

Industrial Revolution
To say that "What caused the Industrial Revolution?" is THE most important question in social science is a highly doubtful assertion; social science is a vast field of study, with many very important questions. To say it is "one of" the most important questions, though, is reasonable, I think. You are certainly right that what we really need is a citation, so I've gone ahead and added to the sentence. —Lowellian (reply) 05:18, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not currently paying close attention to the Industrial Revolution article; I just ran across the article the other day, and saw a doubtful claim and thus qualified it. I wish you happy editing on the article. :) —Lowellian (reply) 02:21, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

GDP
Hi. The graph in the page is unrealistic because it tries to compare GDP of radically different economies, with does not make sense. You cannot compare apples to oranges. In reality it is impossible to make long term comparisons of per capita income or any other quantitative measure. Long term comparisons of economic progress should only be made in qualitative terms, or in terms of physical production of material goods such as iron and coal.--RafaelG 02:08, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Savery engine
Hello Kop, Nice to hear from you. As you saw in my edit comments, I have duplicated the section on the Savery engine in the Steam power during the Industrial Revolution article for now with the idea of shortening it to the briefest resumé on the Industrial Revolution page, which I intend to do shortly, if nobody objects. I think this may be enough, especially with the link to the transcript of the Miner's Friend (The name of the pamphlet rather than that of the engine) on the Rochester site. Don't know if it is worthwhile doing a separate Savery Engine page. The device was a bit of a blind alley, mostly followed up by academics who were a bit piqued that a working solution had been found by a mere "ironmonger", Thomas Newcomen - not one of the boys. This episode is nonetheless interesting and might be worth its own article, (if we can find a title to fit), and involves people like Papin and Desaguliers and the Royal Society. It sent Papin right off the rails towards the end of his life, after he had come very close to the "atmospheric engine" solution twenty years or so before.--John of Paris 09:28, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:50, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Industrial Revolution/GA2
Hi. I've opened a GAR on the Industrial Revolution article for which you are or have been a significant contributor. I have concerns that it does not quite meet current GA criteria regarding a number of issues, including layout, image use, and inline citations, and that length, prose, and use of external links also need discussing. Following the guidelines at Good article reassessment, I'm letting you know in case you're interested in helping to resolve the concerns, though you are under no obligation to do anything. See Talk:Industrial Revolution/GA2 for more details.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  15:13, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:26, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:21, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

title: User talk:Kop


text:
Olive (color)

Olive is a dark yellowish-green color, like that of unripe or green olives.

As a color word in the English language, it appears in late Middle English.

Olivine
Olivine is the typical color of the mineral olivine. The first recorded use of olivine as a color name in English was in 1912.

Olive drab
Olive drab is variously described as a "A brownish-green colour" (Oxford English Dictionary); "a shade of greenish-brown" (Webster's New World Dictionary); "a dark gray-green" (MacMillan English dictionary); "a grayish olive to dark olive brown or olive gray" (American Heritage Dictionary); or "A dull but fairly strong gray-green color" (Collins English Dictionary). It is widely used as a camouflage color for uniforms and equipment in the armed forces.

The first recorded use of olive drab as a color name in English was in 1892. Drab is an older color name, from the middle of the 16th century. It refers to a dull light brown color, the color of cloth made from undyed homespun wool. It took its name from the old French word for cloth, drap.

There are many shades and variations of olive drab. Various shades were used on United States Army uniforms in World War II. The shade used for enlisted soldier's uniforms at the beginning of the war was officially called Olive Drab #33 (OD33), while officer's uniforms used the much darker Olive Drab #51 (OD51). Field equipment was in Olive Drab #3 (OD3), a very light, almost khaki shade. In 1943 new field uniforms and equipment were produced in the darker Olive Drab #7 (OD7). This was in turn replaced by the slightly grayer Olive Green 107 (OG-107) in 1952, which continued as the color of combat uniforms through the Vietnam War until the adoption in 1981 of the four-color-camouflage-patterned M81 Battle Dress Uniform, which retained olive drab as one of the color swatches in the pattern. The shade used for painting vehicles is defined by Federal Standard 595 in the United States.

As a solid color, it is not as effective for camouflage as multi-color patterns, though it is still used by the U.S. military to color webbing and accessories. The armies of Israel, India, Cuba, and Venezuela wear solid-color olive drab uniforms.

In the American novel A Separate Peace, Finny says to Gene, "...and in these times of war, we all see olive drab, and we all know it is the patriotic color. All others aren't about the war; they aren't patriotic."

Pantone 448 C, "the ugliest color in the world" commonly used in plain tobacco packaging, was initially described as a shade of olive green.

Black olive

Black olive is a color in the RAL color matching system. It is designated as RAL 6015.

The color "black olive" is a representation of the color of black olives.

Olive in culture

 * Ethnography
 * The term "olive-skinned" is sometimes used to denote shades of medium-toned skin that is darker than the average color for White people, especially in connection with a Mediterranean ethnicity.

title: Olive (color)