text:
Rectal foreign body

Rectal foreign bodies are large foreign items found in the rectum that can be assumed to have been inserted through the anus, rather than reaching the rectum via the mouth and gastrointestinal tract. It can be of clinical relevance if the patient cannot remove it the way they intended. Smaller, ingested foreign bodies, such as bones eaten with food, can sometimes be found stuck in the rectum upon X-ray and are rarely of clinical relevance.

Rectal foreign bodies are a subgroup of foreign bodies in the alimentary tract.

Signs and symptoms
If the foreign body is too big to allow feces from the colon to pass, a mechanical ileus may occur. The distension of the rectum and the disruption of the peristasis reinforce this effect.

The foreign body may cause infections, destroying the intestinal wall. Depending on the location of the perforation, this may lead to a peritonitis due to the feces or an abscess in the retroperitoneal space.

Smaller objects that injure the intestinal wall, but do not perforate it, may be encapsulated by a foreign body granuloma. They may remain in the rectum as a pseudotumor without any further effects.

Complications
The most common – but still rare – complication is a perforation of the rectum caused by the foreign object itself or attempts to remove it. Diagnosed perforations are operated immediately by opening the abdomen and removal or suturing of the perforated area. In order to suppress infections, antibiotics are prescribed. Often, a temporary ileostomy is necessary to protect the stitches. After a contrast medium applied by an enema proves the complete healing of the perforated area, the ileostomy is reversed. This usually takes between three and six months. Average hospitalization is 19 days.

Medical literature describes some deaths due to rectal foreign bodies, but they are very rare and usually classified as autoerotic fatality. A 75-year-old patient died due to a rectal perforation caused by a mentally ill person using a cane. Another middle-aged patient died due to a rectal perforation by a vibrator. The perforation was sutured and the patient received intensive medical care, but he contracted acute respiratory distress syndrome and systemic inflammatory response syndrome due to the trauma, resulting in multiple organ dysfunction syndrome and death. There is a paper describing a death after a perforation with a shoehorn. The rectum has to be nursed after a surgical procedure until healing is complete. A 54-year-old man, who had been operated on twice in order to remove a foreign body (a cucumber and a parsnip), died due to a peritonitis after he inserted two apples into the rectum before the wound had healed.

Causes
Reasons for foreign rectal bodies vary wildly, but in most cases they are of sexual or criminal motivation. The foreign body was inserted voluntarily in the vast majority of cases. This especially includes sexually motivated behaviour, encompassing the majority of cases. Bodypacking, i.e. illegal transport of drugs within a body orifice (here: inside the rectum), is another – potentially – voluntary reason for insertion of foreign rectal bodies. This includes attempts to transport objects like weapons, including knives, or ammunition. According to one study, sexual stimulation was responsible for 80% of clinically relevant foreign rectal bodies. About 10% of the cases were due to sexual assault.

In rare cases, the patient inserted the object into the rectum without a way to remove it intending to receive attention and pity from doctors and nurses. This behaviour is categorized as Munchausen's syndrome.

Another cause may be attempted self-treatment of diseases. One patient attempted to treat his chronic diarrhea by inserting an ear of maize into his rectum. Another patient tried to soothe the itching due to his hemorrhoids (Pruritus ani) with a toothbrush. The toothbrush went out of control and disappeared inside his anus.

Accidents or torture may cause an involuntary insertion of a foreign body. A mercury medical thermometer inserted into the anus in order to measure the temperature, but broke off while inside, is an example of a foreign rectal body due to an accident. Ancient Greece knew the Rhaphanidosis as a punishment for male adulterers. It involved the insertion of a radish into the anus. Many self-inserted rectal bodies are stated as accidentally by the patients due to feelings of shame.

There are several reasons that contribute to the jamming of rectal bodies inside the rectum. Many of the objects used for sexual stimulation have a conical tip in order to facilitate penetration, while the base is flat. Extraction by the user may be impossible if the base of the object passed the anus towards the rectum. In order to receive a stronger stimulation, the object may be inserted deeper than intended. In this case, the sphincter prevents, by mechanical means, the extraction of the foreign body.

By mouth
The other way for a foreign body to travel through the digestive system (after oral intake and passage through the entire intestines) happens very often, but is only rarely medically relevant. Other constrictions, such as the esophagus, cardia, pylorus or ileocecal valve tend to cause issues with other organs, provided a foreign body is large enough to be an issue. Some foreign bodies may still pass those narrows and may cause medically relevant issues, i.e. toothpicks and bones. Bones especially, i.e. from chickens, cause about two thirds of all intestinal perforations.

Plant-based food, especially seeds like popcorn, watermelon, sunflower and pumpkin seed, may clump together inside the lower intestines to form bezoars. Those may grow too big for normal anal passage, thus becoming clinically relevant. This kind of rectal foreign body happens chiefly in children, especially in Northern Africa and the Middle East, where those seeds form an elemental part of the diet. In very rare cases, seeds inside a bezoar may germinate inside the lower intestines or the rectum, causing a blockade.

Objects
Type and size of the foreign rectal bodies are diverse and may exceed the anatomical-physiological imagination.

Objects documented in literature include:
 * Razor, screw, screwdriver, small rolled tool bag (15×12 cm, including tools 620 g), hairpin, milk can opener, drill bit
 * Short staffs, such as a 27 cm long chair leg, a 19 cm long spade handle and a broken off broom handle, extension parts for a vacuum cleaner
 * Containers, sometimes exceeding 0.5 L in volume, e.g. sparkling wine bottles, bottles of Coca-Cola, jam pots, small beer glasses, cups
 * Spray can, light bulb, vacuum tube, candle
 * WWII artillery shell requiring attention from a bomb squad
 * Table tennis ball, Boccia ball
 * Ammunition, firecracker
 * Vibrator, rubber rod, dildo
 * a toy car
 * spectacles, a suitcase key, a tobacco pouch and a magazine at the same time
 * plastic tooth brush case

Not all objects are solid. In 1987, a case was documented of a patient who administered a cement enema. After it solidified and impacted, the resulting block had to be surgically extracted. Another extreme case occurred in November 1953. A depressed man inserted a 15 cm long cardboard tube into his rectum and tossed a lighted firecracker into the tube's opening, resulting in a large hole in his rectum.

Diagnosis
Many patients feel ashamed during the anamnesis and provide information only reluctantly. This may lead to missing information that may be important during therapy. For the same reason, patients may not visit a doctor until very late. Trusting and sensitive care for the ashamed and uncomfortable patients is paramount for a successful therapy and may be life-saving.

Usually, several radiological images are recorded in order to pinpoint the precise place and depth of the foreign body. This is usually done by X-ray. Foreign bodies made from low-contrast material (e.g. plastics) may necessitate medical ultrasound or a CT scan. Magnetic resonance imaging is contraindicated, especially if the foreign body is unknown. Foreign rectal bodies may penetrate deep into the colon, in certain circumstances up to the right colic flexure.

An endoscopy, which may also be of use during therapy, facilitates the identification and localisation of the object inside the rectum.

Information about the foreign body obtained in those ways are of high importance during therapy, as a perforation of the rectum or the anus is to be absolutely avoided.

Treatment
The therapeutic measures to remove the foreign body can be as diverse as the objects inside the rectum. In many instances, the foreign bodies consist of fragile materials, such as glass. Most patients wait for several hours or even days until they visit a doctor. Before they do, they often repeatedly try to remove the object themselves or by a layperson. This often worsens the situation for a successful extraction.

In most cases, the foreign body can be removed endoscopically. Vibrators, for example, can be often removed using a large sling usually used to remove polyps during coloscopy. A flexible endoscope can be of no help with large and jammed objects. It may be preferable to use rigid tools in those cases.

There have been several cases where instruments used in child birth have proven their worth for the removal of those foreign bodies, such as the forceps and suction cups. Wooden objects have been retrieved with corkscrews and drinking glasses after filling them with plaster. A spoon can be used as an "anchor" by leaving it inside the glass during the plaster filling, removing it together with the glass. Light bulbs are encased in a gauze shroud, shattered inside the rectum and extracted.

There have been successful cases using argon-plasma coagulation. The object in question was a green apple wrapped in cellophane inside the rectum of a 44-year-old patient. The argon-beam coagulation shrunk the apple by more than 50%, enabling its removal. Previous extraction attempts using endoscopic tools failed due to the flat surface of the object.

If the object is too far up, in the area of the colon sigmoideum, and cannot be removed using one of the above methods, bed rest and sedation can cause the object to descend back into the rectum, where retrieval and extraction are easier.

In difficult cases, a laparotomy may be necessary. Statistically, this is the case in about 10 percent of patients. The large intestine can be manipulated inside the abdominal cavity, making it possible for it to wander in the direction of the anus and be grabbed there. A surgical opening of the large intestines can be indication in very difficult cases, especially if the manipulation of the object may pose a serious health risk. This may be the case with a jammed drug condom.

Anaesthesia
Mild cases may need a sedation at most. Local and spinal anaesthesia find common use. Difficult interventions may need general anaesthesia; surgical opening of the abdominal cavity or the colon require it. General anaesthesia can be beneficial for the relaxation of the sphincter.

Aftercare
After the surgery, a sigmoidoscopy – a colonoscopy focused on the first 60 cm of the colon – is good practice in order to rule out possible perforation and injury of the rectum and the colon sigmoideum. Stationary aftercare may be indicated.

Examples

 * APC = Argon beam-coagulation
 * N.A. = Not available

(Source: )

Epidemiology
There is no reliable data about the incidence of clinically meaningful foreign rectal bodies. It may have increased in the long term as it is observed more often in recent times.

The incident rate is significantly higher for men than for women. The gender ratio is in the area of 28:1. A metastudy in the year 2010 found a ratio of 37:1. Median age of the patients was 44.1 years, with a standard deviation of 16.6 years. Rectal foreign bodies are not an unusual occurrence in hospital emergency rooms.

The first documented case dates from the 16th century.

Other animals
Foreign rectal bodies are rare in veterinary medicine. A passage through the entire intestines, followed by a stay inside the rectum is – as with humans – rare. Animals may have bezoars out of different materials, which may migrate to the rectum and cause problems.

Ig Nobel Prize
The Ig Nobel Prize was awarded in 1995 to David B. Busch and James R. Starling from Madison, Wisconsin, for their 1986 article Rectal foreign bodies: Case Reports and a Comprehensive Review of the World's Literature (see List of Ig Nobel Prize winners).

title: Rectal foreign body


text:
Kasimir Graff

Kasimir Romuald Graff (7 February 1878 – 15 February 1950) was a Polish-German astronomer. He worked as an assistant at the Hamburg Observatory and became a professor at Hamburg in 1916. In 1928 he became director of the Vienna Observatory, Austria. When the Nazi government took over in Austria in 1938, he was forced to retire. It is likely that his family background and his rejection of the Nazi-supported philosophy of "Welteislehre" was the reason, although he officially was removed because of unproven charges of embezzlement. He was reinstated in 1945, and he retired in 1949.

Using a 60 cm telescope, he was very adept in creating planetary maps from visual observations.

He also worked on measuring radiation emitted from stars, and invented and built new instrumentation for this purpose. This included new types of calorimeter and photometer detectors.

Honors

 * The lunar crater Graff, as well as Martian crater Graff, are named after Graff.

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

title: Kasimir Graff


text:
Andrew B. Moore

Andrew Barry Moore (March 7, 1807 – April 5, 1873) was the 16th Governor of the U.S. state of Alabama from 1857 to 1861 and served as Governor at the outbreak of the American Civil War.

Early life
Moore was born in Spartanburg District, South Carolina, to Jane and Charles Moore, a cotton planter and veteran of the American Revolution and the War of 1812. Moore's father purchased land in Perry County, Alabama, in 1820, and his family moved there, although the younger Moore remained in school in South Carolina before joining his family in 1826.

Career
After teaching school at Marion in Perry County for two years, Moore read law, and was admitted to the bar in 1833. For eight years, he served as Justice of the Peace for Perry County.

In 1839 Moore was elected to the Alabama House of Representatives as a Democrat, reelected in 1842, and served four consecutive terms. Elected Speaker of the House in 1843, 1844, and 1845, Moore worked closely with Governor Benjamin Fitzpatrick in the liquidation of the State Bank. Moore advocated the relocation of the state capitol to Montgomery and delivered the last speech in the old Hall of the House of Representatives in Tuscaloosa.

Moore resumed his law practice in 1846. He was a presidential elector for Democratic candidate Lewis Cass in 1848. Appointed by Governor Henry W. Collier in 1851 to fill a vacancy on the circuit bench, Moore served in that capacity until 1857, when he accepted the Democratic Party's nomination for governor. He was elected without opposition.

Education and internal improvements received significant attention during Moore's first term. Construction was completed on the Alabama Insane Hospital at Tuscaloosa, and Dr. Peter Bryce was appointed its first superintendent. The Institute for the Deaf and Blind was established at Talladega. The Medical College, a branch of the University of Alabama, was established at Mobile. Moore advocated state aid supplemented by Federal land grants to promote railroad construction. He particularly favored efforts of the Alabama and Alabama River Railroad to connect the northern and southern areas of the state.

Then considered a moderate on the slavery issue, Moore defeated the extremist William F. Samford, in the gubernatorial election of 1859. Although he became more concerned with the defense of slavery after John Brown's raid on the U.S. Arsenal at Harper's Ferry, Virginia, in October 1859, Moore continued to recommend caution. Nevertheless, the state legislature enacted a law to provide for a state military organization in February 1860. The law established a Military Commission composed of the governor, an adjutant and inspector general, a quartermaster general, and a state army of eight thousand volunteers. The legislature also approved a resolution requiring the governor, in the event of a "black Republican" being elected president, to call for the election of delegates to a state convention "to consider, determine, and do whatever necessary to protect the interests of the state." On December 24, 1860, Moore issued writs of election, leading to the Secession Convention of 1861.

Between the November 1860 election of Abraham Lincoln and the meeting of the Alabama Convention on January 7, 1861, Moore took several decisive steps to safeguard the state's financial status and defensive capabilities. He urged banks to suspend specie payments and to exchange large amounts of capital for state bonds. He ordered the state militia to seize the U.S. Army arsenal at Mt. Vernon and Forts Morgan and Gaines on Mobile Bay. He contributed more than five hundred troops to assist Florida Governor Madison S. Perry in capturing the U.S. Army forts at Pensacola.

When the government of the Confederate States of America was organized in Montgomery in February 1861, Moore used his influence to help secure the election of the conservative Jefferson Davis over the more radical William Lowndes Yancey.

After he left office, Moore was appointed special aide-de-camp by Governor John Gill Shorter, and he worked to coordinate the procurement and transportation of supplies to General Albert Sidney Johnston in northern Alabama. Following the surrender of Robert E. Lee at Appomattox, Moore was arrested by Federal troops and imprisoned at Fort Pulaski in Savannah, Georgia, with other Confederate leaders. Released in August 1865, he returned to Marion, Alabama, and resumed law practice.

Personal life
In 1832, he married Mary Goree, the daughter of a local planter. They resided in Marion, Alabama.

Death
He died in 1873.

title: Andrew B. Moore


text:
John A. Winston

John Anthony Winston (September 4, 1812 – December 21, 1871) was a planter, military officer, and politician who became the 15th Governor of Alabama (1853 to 1857) after serving as president of the state senate (1845–1849). Alabama's first native-born governor, Winston later fought for the Confederate States of America as colonel of the 8th Alabama Infantry early in the American Civil War, and after the conflict was not permitted to assume a seat in the United States Senate.

Early and family life
He was born in 1812 to the former Mary Cooper and her planter husband William Winston in Tuscumbia, in Madison County, then in the Alabama Territory. His grandfather Anthony Winston had represented Buckingham County, Virginia in the House of Burgesses, one of Virginia's Revolutionary Conventions, and as one of its first (part-time) representatives in the Virginia House of Delegates, before becoming a Virginia judge.

Winston received a private education appropriate to his class, including at LaGrange College (now the location of the University of North Alabama) and later in Tennessee at Cumberland College (which later became the University of Nashville). John Anthony Winston married his first cousin, Mary Agness Jones (1819–1835), on August 7, 1832, in Madison County, Alabama. They had only one surviving child, a daughter, Mary Agnes Winston.

Career

Winston, like his father, operated plantations using enslaved labor. He also became Cotton Commissioner, inspecting the state's main export crop.

Legislator and officer
Winston continued his family's tradition of political involvement in 1840, winning an election to the state House of Representatives and re-election in 1842. In 1843 he won election to the state Senate and won re-election until his gubernatorial term described below. Fellow senators elected Winston their president from 1845 to 1849. During his legislative career, Winston also represented Alabama at the 1848 Democratic party convention in Baltimore and the attempted secessionist convention in Nashville in 1850. Although considered a strong southern rights advocate, Winston did not support William Lowndes Yancey's ardent state's rights platform in Baltimore, nor the popular sovereignty compromise at the Nashville meeting.

Meanwhile, in 1846 Winston organized a militia company to fight in the Mexican–American War, but it was never called into active duty.

Governor
Alabama voters elected Winston the 15th Governor of the U.S. state of Alabama, and he won re-election after two years, thus serving from 1853 to 1857. Winston became known as the "veto governor" because he vetoed more than 30 bills, many concerning public support for transportation initiatives, including railroads. Alabama's bank had failed, which caused his particular concern about state finances. However, Winston still encouraged public education and, in 1854, signed a bill creating Alabama's public school system. In 1855 he won re-election by a narrow margin over the Know Nothing party candidate, George D. Shortridge.

Confederate officer
Following Alabama's secession, Winston was colonel of the 8th Alabama Infantry Regiment. His strict discipline did not endear him to his troops. His unit was involved in the Peninsula campaign, most notably the Battle of Seven Pines.

Winston's cousin was the Mississippi's wartime governor, John Jones Pettus, who was born in Wilson County, Tennessee on October 9, 1813, and died in Pulaski County, Arkansas on January 25, 1867. Governor Pettus' wife, Permelia Virginia Winston (1809–1857), was also Winston's sister.

Postwar
Winston won an election as a delegate to the 1865 Alabama Constitutional Convention. In January 1867, he presented his credentials to the United States Senate as Senator-elect from Alabama for 1867–1873. However, he was not permitted to take his seat because he refused to take an oath of allegiance to the United States.

Death and legacy
Winston died December 21, 1871, in Mobile, Alabama and is buried in the Winston Family Cemetery (privately owned) near Gainesville in Sumter County, Alabama, as is Permelia Virginia Winston Pettus.

title: John A. Winston


text:
Henry W. Collier

Henry Watkins Collier (January 17, 1801 – August 28, 1855 in Bailey Springs, Alabama) was the 14th Governor of the U.S. state of Alabama from 1849 to 1853. He was born in Lunenburg County, Virginia, son of James Collier and Elizabeth Bouldin. Collier arrived in Tuscaloosa, Alabama, from South Carolina in 1823. He sat on the Alabama Supreme Court for 18 years, of which 12 were as chief justice. He married Mary Ann Williams Battle. His only son, a doctor, died of cholera as a young man. He was a staunch believer in slavery and states' rights who was intolerant of abolition discussions. He was a friend of Dorothea Dix and promoted education, care of the mentally ill, and prison reform in Alabama. The family was closely allied with those of Rufus King (one daughter marrying his nephew, the other marrying Prof. Geo. Benagh of Tuscaloosa) and Gov. Clay. Following his term as governor, Collier was offered a seat in the United States Senate but declined and retired. He died in Bailey Springs, Alabama, of gastroenteritis.

While governor of Alabama, Collier had managed to offend a group of visiting chargés d'affaires from France, representing business interests in the port of Mobile. Collier rebuffed numerous invitations they made to him, leading them to criticize him publicly. Their criticisms were reported in the newspapers of the Alabama Reporter and the Advertiser and State Gazette based in Montgomery. In response, Collier invited the French chargés d'affaires to the governor's mansion in Montgomery. However, the meeting proved a disaster.

The French chargés d'affaires all left feeling "greatly offended". Collier later said, "the French are unmanly and frivolous, their morals are universally profligate", and he did not care if he offended them. The French diplomats responded by cultivating a relationship with Alabama politician James Shields, who they believed would better serve their interests. Shields proved friendlier to the French diplomats, frequently having them to his "parlor" as guests and "showing them off". In the 1851 Alabama gubernatorial election, Shields had the public backing of France's diplomatic representatives and the French expatriate business community in Mobile.

In a move later cited as his reason for having to depart the United States, the French ambassador in Washington DC, Guillaume Tell Poussin, took the unprecedented step of endorsing Shields in the election and of "encouraging the men of Alabama to make him governor." Shortly before the election, a visiting French businessman, Yves de la Tour d'Auvergne, whose operations were primarily based in Martinique and French Guiana, spoke to Congressman David Hubbard in a way that Hubbard characterized as condescending, explaining basic facts about Alabama to Hubbard as if Hubbard did not already know them (including deliberately obvious things such as which city was the capital, and that Alabama had not been a state for a hundred years) and also referring to Hubbard in the third person, in English, while Hubbard was present and speaking of him "as though he were a fool." During this exchange, Hubbard had been a guest of d'Auvergne and was "shocked" by the treatment. Hubbard was known as a major public supporter of Collier, and Monsieur de la Tour d'Auvergne gave a very public toast to Shields at the event. Shields was considered the invité d'honneur or "guest of honor" at the event, and Hubbard later concluded he had only been invited as an insult.

After the election, it became clear to both d'Auvergne and Ambassador Poussin that they had greatly misjudged public opinion among "the leading men of Alabama"; following this d'Auvergne departed Mobile. Following his term as governor, Collier was offered a seat in the United States Senate but declined and retired.

title: Henry W. Collier


text:
Reuben Chapman

Reuben Chapman (July 15, 1799 – May 17, 1882) was an American lawyer and politician. He served six terms in the U.S. House of Representatives from 1835 to 1847, and as the 13th Governor of Alabama from 1847 to 1849.

Early life
Born on July 15, 1799, in Bowling Green, Virginia, he moved to Alabama in 1824, where he established a law practice.

Political career
He represented Alabama in the U.S. House of Representatives from March 4, 1835, to March 3, 1847, and served as the 13th Governor of the U.S. state of Alabama from 1847 to 1849.

Relationship with French ambassador
While a member of the House of Representatives, he had a very contentious relationship with the French ambassador, Louis Adolphe Aimé Fourier, comte de Bacourt. In 1844 the ambassador had made remarks towards him, and Virginia congressman George W. Hopkins, and Chapman challenged Louis Adolphe Aimé Fourier, comte de Bacourt to a duel. However, the French ambassador backed down. That same year the French ambassador also offended Virginia congressman Lewis Steenrod, though it is unknown precisely what words were exchanged. Chapman and Hopkins grew so hostile towards the French ambassador that in 1846, President James K. Polk eventually asked the French government to send Monsieur Fourier home and select a new ambassador to the United States.

Death
He died in Huntsville, Alabama on May 17, 1882.

title: Reuben Chapman


text:
Joshua L. Martin

Joshua Lanier Martin (December 5, 1799 – November 2, 1856) was an American Democratic Party politician who served (as an Independent) as the 12th Governor of the U.S. state of Alabama from 1845 to 1847. He also served as a representative to the United States Congress for Alabama's 2nd district from 1835 to 1839.

He was born on December 5, 1799, in Blount County, Tennessee. He taught school during his youth years and studied law in Maryville, Tennessee; then, he moved to Alabama in 1819 to continue his studies. He passed the bar and began legal practice in Athens, Alabama. He was known as an ardent Democrat. Before serving the state of Alabama as its governor, he served as a legislator, solicitor, circuit judge, and congressman. He was first elected to Congress as part of the 24th Congress and a member of the Jacksonian Party. However, he changed parties to the Democratic Party when elected to the 25th Congress. In 1845, he opposed other Democratic leaders and ran as an independent for governor, defeating the mainstream Democratic candidate, and Democrats never forgave him for his action. However, he denied the Whig Party any chance it might have had to win office that year. During his term of office, the state capitol was moved from Tuscaloosa, Alabama to its current location in Montgomery, Alabama. His tenure also saw the United States declare war on the Republic of Mexico. As governor, Martin saw the state bank's dissolution, which he had perceived as crooked. Although he initially ran for reelection in 1847, he later withdrew his name from consideration. After his term as governor, he returned to law practice in Tuscaloosa, Alabama, but did serve one more term in the state legislature in 1853. He never lost an election for public office. Martin died in 1856 in Tuscaloosa, Alabama, at 56.

title: Joshua L. Martin


text:
User talk:Mrtrey99

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia! Hope you like it here, and stick around.

Here are some tips to help you get started:

 * To sign your posts (on talk pages, for example) use the '~' symbol. To insert just your name, type ~~~ (3 tildes), or, to insert your name and timestamp, use ~~~~ (4 tildes).
 * Try the Tutorial, and feel free to experiment in the test area.
 * If you need help, post a question at the Help Desk
 * Follow the Simplified Ruleset
 * Eventually, you might want to read the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines.
 * Remember Neutral point of view
 * Explore, be bold in editing pages, and, most importantly, have fun!

Good luck!

Hi, I've made some minor changes to Peter G. Peterson, and I thought I'd let you know so that you can see the Wikipedia style, with bolded subject. Remember to give the nationality - we are not all Americans! jimfbleak 05:43, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

You just deleted half the article I was working on
You just deleted almost all my work. They wern't unused catagories, they were about to be filed in!. I was just making Tahoe a great article. Tobyk777 20:00, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Never mind that, I just figured out how to revert the changes. Tobyk777 02:24, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Chiltepin_mexico_sonora.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Chiltepin_mexico_sonora.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this:.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you have questions about copyright tagging of images, post on Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags or User talk:Carnildo/images. 11:22, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Attempts to erase Vidor, Texas past
Why do you keep removing any part of Vidor's article that reveals its past as a sundown town? 75.25.29.160 16:06, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Read the policy
Please read Verifiability before re-inserting unsourced material again, as you did for Red drum. In particular, see the section Verifiability. Once material has been challenged and removed for having no sources, it should not be added back into the article again until published reliable sources are cited. -- Donald Albury 23:57, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs
Hello Mrtrey99! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 2 of the articles that you created  are tagged as Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. Please note that all biographies of living persons must be sourced. If you were to add reliable, secondary sources to these articles, it would greatly help us with the current Category:All_unreferenced_BLPs article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the unreferencedBLP tag. Here is the list:

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 23:43, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Sandra Lerner -
 * 2) Nicolae Manolescu -

Exothermic cutting
This is an automated message from VWBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Exothermic cutting, and it appears to be a substantial copy of http://www.oxylance.com/product_catalog/exothermic_cutting_systems.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) VWBot (talk) 21:10, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

December 2010
Your addition to Exothermic cutting has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other websites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of article content such as sentences or images. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. VernoWhitney (talk) 16:21, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Starr Companies
Hello Mrtrey99,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Starr Companies for deletion, because the article doesn't clearly say why the subject is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions.  Ish dar  ian  15:57, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Collins Stewart Hawkpoint for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Collins Stewart Hawkpoint is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Collins Stewart Hawkpoint until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Philafrenzy (talk) 00:14, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:15, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Vachellia farnesiana var. farnesiana
An article that you have been involved in editing—Vachellia farnesiana var. farnesiana—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. 86.83.56.115 (talk) 10:06, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Rabbit Inc.

The article Rabbit Inc. has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern: "Per WP:N and WP:NCORP. No significant third-party coverage of a non-noteable company."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Comatmebro (talk) 17:36, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

I guess much research was done before deleting this article.

https://www.fastcompany.com/3034555/rabbit-a-free-video-chat-that-makes-it-easy-to-watch-netflix-with-friends

https://www.businessinsider.com/this-startup-thinks-that-its-solved-a-major-problem-with-video-chatting-2014-8

https://techcrunch.com/2013/02/28/rabbit-raises-3-3m-seed-round/

https://decider.com/2017/06/28/skype-facetime-rabbit-the-best-way-to-remotely-binge/

https://www.techspot.com/article/1224-watch-netflix-with-friends/

https://mashable.com/article/netflix-sync/#3BBRRDmG1gqZ

Speedy deletion nomination of Rabbit Inc.

A tag has been placed on Rabbit Inc. requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a company, corporation or organization that does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the. Largoplazo (talk) 17:49, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

I am really glad you deleted this, it really makes me want to contribute to Wikipedia when people delete articles. I guess Wikipedia needs the storage space.

Ibrahim ben Ali
The work you just did on Ibrahim ben Ali recreated an article that had previously been deleted for lack of notability. As the article now stands, it is no more persuasive than the older form of the article, only citing a dead self-published special-interest web page, and I was thinking about nominating it for deletion again, given that pretty much all of the coverage of this man seemed to be as an aside while talking about his grandson, meaning he was not independently notable. . . . then I found a couple of detailed sources on him alone - you will want to incorporate these:,. You should also dump the bare URL at the bottom of the page - that is not how Wikipedia handles references. Try to find formally-published material that recapitulates the information, so you can avoid the web page entirely, which debatably isn't WP:RS, but if you must, use a live version of the page, and cite it properly - author, title, publisher, and URL (use the cite web template). Agricolae (talk) 05:29, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Ibrahim Ben Ali

The article Ibrahim Ben Ali has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern: "unsourced"

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. MDPMHG (talk) 07:24, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of White Mountains Insurance Group

The article White Mountains Insurance Group has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern: "Fails WP:NCORP."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Jacona (talk) 13:38, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of White Mountains Insurance Group for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article White Mountains Insurance Group is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/White Mountains Insurance Group until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Jacona (talk) 04:06, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Ways to improve Ibrahim Ben Ali
Hello, Mrtrey99,

Thank you for creating Ibrahim Ben Ali.

I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

"The Dublin Literary Journal and Select Family Visitor has extensive coverage of the subject, but as an obscure 19th century publication it's not clear whether or not this source is reliable."

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and prepend it with. And, don't forget to sign your reply with. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

signed,Rosguill talk 21:06, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Mann+Hummel

A tag has been placed on Mann+Hummel, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:39, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of Gorat's for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Gorat's is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Gorat's until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Boleyn (talk) 16:02, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

title: User talk:Mrtrey99


text:
Talk:Evolution/Creationism/DLR

Moved out of main talk:evolution namespace.

I'll make this brief. Among scientists, the theory of evolution is evaluated as critically as any other theory. When scientific theories are presented to high-school students, they generally aren't presented in a critical light. Creationists have singled out evolution for special scrutiny. Anything that suggests that Creationists are treating evolution like any other theory is false, and will be removed. AdamRetchless 13:43, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * Let me ask you (or other proponent of theory of evolution) one question. Are there any known issues, flaws, discrepancies, or areas of doubt in the theory of evolution as it currently stands? Respectfully - DavidR 22:29, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * Yes, there are. Every field of science has "known issues, flaws, discrepancies, or areas of doubt". There are some "black boxes" in evolutionary biology, but there is a tremendous amount of evidence supporting it. AdamRetchless 22:47, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * I don't see any of these discussed on the page with the article. In any other Wikipedia article there is discourse presenting "the other side", I see one link (and it's just that, a bare link, no context, no discourse) to one "question" that I know of and the scholar who asks the question is tarred with the brush of Creationist.  I know for a fact that this scholar holds a secular viewpoint.  Oh and there is a reference to another issue with a link, but the text of the link makes no reference to what problems this issue  may or may not pose to the theory of evolution. Respectfully - DavidR 23:26, 13 Jul 2004  (UTC)

 * You said "When scientific theories are presented to high-school students, they generally aren't presented in a critical light." Does that mean that it is OK to take information that has been proven incorrect and teach information that as the current state of knowledge?  Astronomy teachers don't teach that the Earth is the center of the universe, nor do geology teachers teach that the Earth is flat.  Yet  information that is known to be incorrect is routinely taught as the state of current knowledge.  Some of this has been out of date for around 100 years, can you tell me why is it still being taught in our schools?  Respectfully - DavidR 12:56, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Mate. 1- Don't be a troll; you are being respectful. Let's keep it that way. I presume you are being ignorant rather than deliberately troll-like. Astronomy teachers don't teach that the earth is the centre of the universe because that particular hypothesis has been falsified. There are several groups of people who will deliberately mislead people because of their own religious beliefs. Evolution by means of natural selection remains the best scientific paradigm for origins. Would you care to provide a scientific theory of creation to challenge that? Would you care to provide examples of things that are taught that is "100 years" out of date? The talk.origins archive has several informative articles. . Remember Wikipedia has a policy of NPOV, particularly NPOV. Dunc_Harris|☺ 13:44, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * I am not trolling, I am asking legitimate questions.   I am sorry if this offends you.  Yes, I am comparing information in modern biology text books to outdated cosmological theories because these biology texts contain information we know is outdated or just plain wrong.  My comments were a reply to AdamRetchless and I am very interested in his response.

 * However, let me pose the same question to you and I did to Adam. Since "Every field of science has 'known issues, flaws, discrepancies, or areas of doubt'" I would like to know why these issues are discussed in other Wikipedia articles yet almost completely glossed over in this one?

 * And on a more personal note, I am not trolling, nor am I being abusive. Kindly refrain from name calling and references to pseudo-science.  I am discussing your belief system, not Intelligent Design, Creationism or any other theory like the Earth being seeded by space aliens.  I am interested in the facts and only the facts.  Respectfully - DavidR 15:34, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

You are not being abusive, and that is good. However, you are poorly informed. The appropriate place for the is under the creationism article. The social effect should be mentioned. Discrepancies (and you have yet to point any out should go into the subpages, as they are unimportant to the overall theory until one looks at the details. Until there is a paradigm shift away from a scientific theory of evolution, towards a scientific theory of creation, or a scientific theory that hasn't been thought up yet, then that should be mentioned.  As for pseudoscience, see philosophy of science, and an explanation why ID or other forms of creationism are pseudoscience.

I have written a shed load on the peppered moth, if you're interested in some minor contradictions in research, and the way in which it was blown up to be something more than it was by the community. (and which I, erm, need to finish). Dunc_Harris|☺ 15:48, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * Evolution is a broad scientific topic with considerable importance to modern biology, and I've always felt that the science in this article played second fiddle to the Creationist debate, which is really rather unfortunate. If in the current form Creationism is not strongly emphasized, that is as it should be - the Creationist critique should not be primary or even very prominent.
 * In any event, as far as presenting information that is incorrect in educational contexts, this is done all the time. The obvious example would be Newtonian mechanics - not strictly correct according to the current relativistic paradigm, but far simpler to present to schoolchildren and a reasonable approximation of most mundane phenomena. The same applies to biology.
 * In a larger sense, every scientific model is obviously imperfect. It is a model, the best available description we can make of the workings of the universe. But it is never an exact description, because our knowledge is incomplete. Nevertheless, this is no reason to scorn it; greater understanding is built on these incomplete blocks. Graft 15:57, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * I am talking about deliberate misrepresentation of material in text books and all you can do is chant is the same tired mantra of "Creationist, creationist". Can you please try to be objective and treat this as the science you claim it is?  I haven't mentioned Creationism once other than to tell you (again) that it's not the subject.

 * I have a minor family crisis and probably won't be posting for a day or so, but in the meantime can you try to consider if a deliberate misrepresentation in a text book is desirable? Respectfully - DavidR 17:45, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * Sorry; let me be clear. It's simply a fact that no biologist challenges the validity of evolution, especially now in the era of comparative genome analysis. The weight of evidence this has given supporting common descent and selective effects is towering, and I have not seen any challenges of it. No one would dispute, for example, chimp/human common ancestry given the draft chimp genome (soon to be published in full) and the human genome. The only people that do are those motivated by their other beliefs, i.e. Creationists. I assume that you fall into this camp, whether you have stated it or not, from your choice of words and your inclination. If I am wrong, please correct me; however, there is no reason to be disingenuous and pretend that this is about anything other Creationism.
 * Furthermore, since you haven't given me any examples of deliberate misrepresentations of material in text books, I can only speak from my own experience of elementary education on evolution (which was actually quite limited). If you would provide examples it would do a great deal towards demonstrating your point; otherwise, you leave me at sea. Graft 18:17, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * (Response to David) Specific complaints would be helpful. I'm really not clear what you are talking about or what it has to do with this article. This discussion began because you wrote that "CREATIONISTS in the United States have succeeded in convincing some state governments...that the theory of evolution should be subject to critical evaluation of the same sort as that given to any other scientific theory." That statement is what we are discussing here, and I don't know how anything you have said applies to this statement. I'll repeat what I said at the beginning: Scientists evaulate the theory of evolution as critically as they evaluate every other theory (I have done it myself and see it constantly). High school text books generally just relate the findings of professional scientists. In this sense, any inaccuracies in text-books relate to the failure to explain evolutionary theory properly, and not to anything dealing with creationism.

 * Partly in response to this discussion, I made sure to discuss the unsettled questions in the "history of life" section. I also looked at the article for the big bang, thinking that it could be analagous to evolution, and provide some insight on to how address gaps in evolutionary theory. Unfortunately, I don't think that it is much help since physics is much more clear-cut and quantitative than biology. There are no simple predictions that emerge from evolutionary theories, such as "there should be monopoles". This could be that evolutionary theory is too broad, and not really analagous to the "big bang", but more analagous to cosmology. It could also be that life is a complex phenomenon and that the details of its history are incredibly important, so we can't make any big predictions about life. We can make a bunch of little predictions when we try to reconstruct lineages and speciation events, and scientists do that all of the time. As a result, we can see the general structure of the "tree of life", but there are places where we can't figure out the details of what happened. After all, we don't even know all of the details about living organisms, for example 20% of the genes in E. coli still don't have assigned functions, and many of those current assignments are vague and untested. (FYI, E. coli is by far the most completly studied organism on Earth) AdamRetchless 18:25, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * The vague insinuations that David is mentioning suggests that he has in mind the content of Icons of Evolution by Jonathon Wells. Unfortunately, the scientific community has rejected Wells' findings, and basically called Wells a liar (albeit a very clever one; which in academia is serious mudslinging).  There are some links in the article on the book that I wrote.  Dunc_Harris|☺ 14:47, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * I agree, and I am familiar with this book. The author is a proven liar who shamefully twists facts, so as try to convince people of his religious beliefs. That man is an embarassment. RK 03:41, Jul 18, 2004 (UTC)

Ok, several comments here.

1.  I have made no "vague insinuations", I have flat out stated that data that has been known as fraudulent for roughly 100 years is published in high school text books as valid. (To the best of my knowledge there is only one datum that fits that description. If there are more please accept my apologies.)  Since the theory of evolution is constantly criticized, as you have so emphatically stated, I would like to know how (or perhaps why) such a glaring error has not been corrected?

2. I haven't read Icons of Evolution, but thanks for the link. Have you read it?

3. The title of this section is "Critical evaluation of Evolution", so I mistakenly believed that was what we were discussing. If you wanted to discuss something else you should have put a different title on this section. However changing it now, with all the discussion that has already taken place, would seem futile.

4. Obviously not all biologists agree that the theory of evolution is the undeniable fact you seem to think it is, or else there wouldn't be several books by, and several professional institutes with, degreed bio-scientists in them questioning the theory of evolution. Credential wise I know of at least a Ph.D.. in Molecular Biologist and a Ph.D.. in Vertebrate Embryology, oh and Cyril Clarke has a degree in the life sciences too, but I don't recall what it is exactly at the moment. I haven't done any research into the issue of "Individuals with Degrees in Life Sciences who Question the Theory of Evolution", this is just what's cropped up in my reading.

5. If the theory if evolution is the absolute fact that you imply it is, why are you (2nd person plural) so adamant about not presenting any dissenting opinion on the article page? As we agreed earlier, every science has areas of uncertainty. If those areas exist then why not publicize them in the article, just like every other article on Wikipedia has the opposing viewpoint. Respectfully - DavidR 19:21, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * Please stop pushing your creationist religious beliefs. There is nothing even remotely scientific about them. RK 03:41, Jul 18, 2004 (UTC)

RK, could you please detail exactly what Creationist beliefs I'm pushing? Please quote me when you do so. So far all I have done is ask questions about the theory of evolution. Questions which, I might add, should be welcomed if the theory of evolution were treated like any other science. Yet, after researching a little about Icons of Evolution I see the author has been villified with countless personal attacks and relatively little critique of his work. I'll make up my own mind after I read the book. Respectfully - DavidR 12:32, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * Replies (we need to move this to a subpage)

 * 1. You are "vague" because you are mentioning no specifics.
 * 2. I have not read Icons of Evolution, but there is a pdf file linked to it which is a short summary, which appeared in a Christian magazine, as well as Well's peppered moth essay, which is on the "true origins" archive. I have also read reviews of it in the scientific journals and Nik Tamzek's Obfuscation piece.
 * 3. Cyril Clarke was a medical doctor with an interest in lepidoptery. Most of his work I think was in the area of medical genetics and lepidoptery; his contribution to evolutionary theory was minimal (compare Hamilton and Maynard Smith.  And anyway, if we want to get into argument from authority, which one of us do you suppose has a biology degree?
 * 4. Perhaps we could draw up a list to compare the number of biologists who believe and those who, like Wells, ahem "Father's words, my studies, and my prayers convinced me that I should devote my life to destroying Darwinism". .  It's called Project Steve and currently has 434 signatories.  All called Steve.
 * 5. You're not really pushing any creationist beliefs because you appear not to have a clue what you're talking about. You claim not to be a creationist, yet you jump at the chance of being told where you can read their propaganda.
 * 6. So please provide an alternate scientific theory which is compatible with all that Popper and Kuhn said about philosophy of science. uniformitarianism? Dunc_Harris|☺ 16:01, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

No, I think the replies need to stay right here where everyone can see them. After all, you have nothing to hide since evolution is treated like every other science.

1. I have not mentioned any specifics, yet I have given you enough information to pinpoint exactly what I am talking about. I have given you (again, 2nd pers. pl.) a chance to see if you will admit it was fraud. In short I have given you a chance to display some intellectual honesty. I don't see anyone jumping at the bait yet. But don't worry, there will be plenty of other opportunities later.

2. Well I look forward to reading the original and determining for myself if it has any merit. You might try the same instead of letting someone else tell you what to think.

3. I am not the one who started the arguments from authority, I was merely responding to an inaccuracy in a blanket statement. In addition to that let me add that I was unaware that valid science is determined by vote. Last I heard a fact was a fact, even if the majority fail to recognize it.

4. I am aware of Wells quote. I found out about it shortly after I found out about his book. Just because the man has a motivation doesn't automatically invalidate his work, it just means it need to be checked over more carefully. So far most of the reviews I have read seemed more interested in making personal attacks against Wells than dealing with the questions he has brought up.

5. "Don't be a troll; you are being respectful.  Let's keep it that way." Read those words before? Try applying them personally. I know what I'm talking about, but I seem to be in a room of people who are pretending they don't understand. I'll bring it out in the open soon if one of you doesn't care to, but I truly want to give all of you every chance to do the right thing (see #1 above). Nevertheless I plan to keep it respectful, regardless of your attempts to bait me. :) And speaking of baiting me, I haven't claimed not to be a creationist, or ID proponent, or believer in space aliens seeding the Earth with life or anything else.  Nor have I claimed to be one of the aforementioned.  That's because I'm not here discussing the article on the theory of evolution to talk about anything but the theory of evolution.  No hidden agenda, imagine that!  If you want to know my position on this matter you can ask privately, but so far no one has.  They've all just pointed at me and chanted "creationist".  However none of that has any bearing on my questions or the intellectually honest answers I expect to get from them.

6. This is not about any theory but the theory of evolution, see #5 above. Do you really feel so threatened that you have to misdirect my inquiry at every step? Respectfully - DavidR 21:51, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * This is not a game, and this is not Usenet. If you have a constructive point to make about the article, please make it clearly and not obliquely. We've been dancing around this for a week. What is your point? I haven't the faintest clue what it is you want "all of you" to do, so please be clear and say it here. Graft 22:58, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

What I want to know is why Ernst Haeckel's embroyo drawings are still published in high school text books as if they prove something? They have been proven fraudulent since 1890. Thanks in advance for your courteous and well thought out reply. DavidR 01:36, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * I'd suggest asking the publishers of the textbooks. I have no idea, and probably no one else here does either, since we don't work for the publishing companies. My guess would be ignorance on the part of the publishers. In any event, I don't see how this amounts to a critique of evolution; unless you're suggesting that they were deliberately included despite knowledge of their flaws because there is scant evidence for evolution. If this were true, I think it would merit inclusion in the article. Graft 14:56, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Many text book publishers have been notified of this "mistake" yet it still remains in print. I can supply a list from 2003 Biology Textbook Hearings by the Texas State Board of Education if you wish. Respectfully - DavidR 16:59, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * Ah, so you've been reading the recommended propaganda, eh? See the talk.origins FAQ for a reply on this matter should answer questions, or atleast give answers to them (and if you're not trolling you perhaps should take a few hours to look at it).  Some other people here might be more knowledgable than me in this area.  There is also a reply by whatsisname that wrote the book that was wrong on his website, somewhere (Brown University chap?).  If there is anything wrong with Wikipedia's article on Haeckel's embryos or Ernst Haeckel then that should be discussed there. Dunc_Harris|☺ 16:27, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

No, haven't gotten my copy yet. I read things and critically evaluate them for myself. Thanks for the link, I'll be checking it out. Respectfully - DavidR 16:59, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Dunc_Harris, To quote from the link you posted "Wells is also correct in criticizing textbook authors for perpetuating Haeckel's infamous diagram without commenting on its inaccuracies or the way it was misused to support a falsified theory."

And further down "Furthermore, Haeckel's theory was rotten at the core. It was wrong both in principle and in the set of biased and manipulated observations used to prop it up." ...skipped section explaining Haeckel's theory... "Unfortunately, it was also completely wrong."

So I'd say I have my answers, in part. Even proponents of the theory of evolution recognize that A) Haeckel's drawings were exaggerated (at best)  and  B)  Haeckel's drawings have no place in a modern biology text.

What this doesn't explain is why numerous biology text book publishers fail to correct this egregious error. That however, is a subject for another time and place. Respectfully - DavidR 19:21, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

What this doesn't explain is why numerous biology text book publishers fail to correct this egregious error. That however, is a subject for another time and place. Respectfully - DavidR 19:21, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

What is it you fear from this conversation, Dunc_Harris, that you must keep trying to hide it? If the theory of evolution is science then welcome the expanded knowledge that honest research brings. If the Theory of Evolution is true what do you have to hide? It will stand or fall on it's own merits. This conversation will remain here, and I will replace it every time you try to hide it again. Respectfully - DavidR 02:41, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * Other sources I've read on the subject point out that Haeckel's drawings appear in only two of the ten textbooks Wells reviews, and I'm not sure that they haven't changed them already under criticism, so I'm not sure what the fuss is all about. Anyway, this is hardly about the theory of evolution, which is not going to fall or stand based on the veracity of Haeckel's drawings or what decisions textbook publishers make. Agreed? If so, what bearing does this discussion have on this article? Graft 05:05, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

My original comment (long since reverted) was that the theory of evolution is not treated like other sciences. This is the first part of my argument to show that it is indeed not treated like other sciences. Public schools are used to indoctrinate young minds rather than to teach them. And if you followed the discussion that was swept under the rug you'd know I haven't read Wells book yet. (I got it in the mail last night, along with 2 others, and I'll get to it as I have time.) This is more about the 2003 Biology Textbook Hearings by the Texas State Board of Education, and their choice of books. Errors in other science books, or indeed non-evolution errors of the biology text books are corrected quickly. So why not this error? Because the theory of evolution is treated differently than other sciences.

 * Actually here are some of the real reasons biology textbooks (mostly undergraduate one's) aren't always correctly as quickly as they should:
 * publishing is big business and publishers are often lazy in getting around to incorporate changes from authors (I know because I know faculty who often complain about it), and are always trying to get out the latest overpriced (often >US$100) edition so they can obsolete the old edition as quickly as possible. (This is a great argument for Wikibooks by the way).
 * undergrad texts are often published by committees and often the evolution sections get short shrift (see #3) or are assigned to more junior colleagues not trained as evolutionary biologists. Many authors just copy from each other's textbooks (not verbatim of course) and perpetutate the same errors
 * such texts often emphasize cell and molecular biology at the expense of evolutionary biology because they assume that many, if not most, of the undergrads taking an intro biology class are pre-med students and believe (however erroneously) that evolution is not as directly relevant to them (this is short-sighted, just witness the growth of antibiotic resistance).
 * a very sorry fact is that for working research scientists, that textbooks just don't count as publications for promotion, tenure etc. and hence don't get the same kind of scrunity as journal papers.

 * For more details on this see the excellent Denying Evolution: Creationism, Scientism, and the Nature of Science by Massimo Pigliucci (ISBN 0878936599). --Lexor|Talk 13:55, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Lexor, I know you missed the early part of this discussion. I am talking about high school biology books. DavidR 16:04, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

My next question is, how fast will the actual article be reverted if I make that change again? Respectfully - DavidR 12:55, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * Your comments were not reverted, they were archived to /Creationism/DLR. --Lexor|Talk 13:37, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * No, the article was reverted when I stated that evolutionary science is not treated like any other science. This entire discussion (and the discussion leading up to it) was "archived".  BTW, archiving is what you do with something that is no longer active.  As you can see from the timestamps on all our comments this discussion does not qualify for archiving.  Respectfully - DavidR 15:26, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Nice job. Someone changed the entire paragraph so that it would have to be almost completely rewritten to state that the theory of evolution is not treated like other sciences. Well that's ok, I'll work on a rewrite of that paragraph that has some more facts and less rhetoric. Respectfully - DavidR 13:15, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * I've given up speaking to you. I pointed you to the direction of the appropriate material but you're either bigoted, stupid or (despite protestations to the contrary) you're trolling, in which case I'm not going to feed you.  If you want and are willing to have a sensible conversation, email me.  If you haven't got anything to say about the article then stop trolling. Dunc_Harris|☺ 16:01, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

You have accused me of trolling 3 times now. Yet all I have done is attempt to remain focused on the issue. Yes, I got offended when you tried to sweep these issues under the rug. I feel it was less than honest to do that to an ongoing discussion. I have attempted to develop this conversation slowly because I am trying to keep outright hostility to my comments at a low level. Yet you continually and consistently set up straw men, red herrings, and ad hominem attacks rather than deal with the issues here. For my part, your input is welcome in my discussions, you have given me several links with interesting information, and I appreciate that. I like having both sides of the story and recognize that I am more familiar with one side than the other. The only thing I really resent is your attempts to not have this discussion. These issues are real and they're not going to go away. Respectfully (and I do mean that) - DavidR 17:16, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * David, this conversation is proceeding far too slowly. Everyone's tempers would be greatly eased if you merely said what you wish to say succinctly, we could all evaluate it, and decide how to change the article appropriately. As it is, you are merely infuriating because of the obtuseness with which you drag the conversation along. This has been a week-long conversation, and not a single substantial change to the article has resulted. Graft 17:33, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * Graft, Yes, I see that moving so slowly was a mistake.  I feel we have had some good communication here since I just came out and said what I had to say.  Since I'd rather be direct anyway it'll be easier on me, too.

 * The bottom line is that what I'd like to see added to this article is a reasonable discussion of known issues with the theory of evolution without hanging any "anti evolution" labels on it. I am more than willing to discuss these issues in here first and work on the wording so that we can craft an article that can be informative and respectful to other viewpoints, yet still factually accurate.  Respectfully - DavidR 19:11, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * Perfectly fine - what known issues do you wish to include? Graft 01:00, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * I feel that a section on why the Cambrian Explosion and Irreducible complexity are problems for the theory of evolution would be a good place to start. I'd also like to see almost all references to Creationism removed since they tend to be used as epithets rather than descriptors.

 * And, on a related note, the article on Ernst Haeckel need to be completely rewritten since it's copied verbatim from another Web page. I posted a link on the Talk page but no one has responded yet.  I bring that up because I feel certain that this page (Evolution) links to it.  Respectfully - DavidR 15:48, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * That is not a copyvio, it's a legal copy of the GFDL.
 * No examples of Irreducible complexity in biology are recognised by the scientific community.   . They should be discussed in the appropriate anti-evolution section.
 * The Cambrian explosion can be explained by speciation into vacant ecological niches, see punctuated equilibrium . Dunc_Harris|☺ 16:26, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I appreciate your civil discourse sir. And I agree with your decision to trim this down since the other issue had largely been resolved. As always I appreciate the links and will review them as my time permits.

My understanding is that these are issues among scientists doing the actual research (not just M. Behe in the case of Irreducible complexity) that are not being extensively covered in the popular press. I will of course research that further as well. Graft covered the Haeckle article on it's talk page, and I replied to him there.

And if I may comment briefly on your writing style, blanket statements are generally not accurate. I suspect that when I point out small items like the fact that Dr. M. Behe is part of the "scientific community" you cite above it makes you think I am trolling. I am not. If I made a comment like "All evolutionists are _____" you should be quick (and rightly so) to come back with examples that are an exception to my blanket statement. I believe this misunderstanding is the cause of our miscommunications. Hopefully this will clear the air between us a bit. Respectfully - DavidR 17:52, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * Though Behe may be part of the scientific community, he hasn't (as far as I am aware and can determine by perusing the literature) had the wontons to publish his claims regarding irreducible complexity in any scientific journals, since they're pure conjecture and can't be demonstrated at all. Graft 18:21, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * To clarify, that means that in general, no one argues in scientific literature that any system is irreducibly complex - to do so requires an extremely high burden of proof, since irreducible complexity necessitates a designer. The far more likely scenario, given the other evidence and lack of any other evidence for design, is lack of imagination. There's no such thing as irreducible complexity, you're just too stupid to figure it out. Since both of these are equally unproveable (until someone does demonstrate how X evolved, or Jesus comes down and tells us He left that archaeopteryx in Bavaria to test our faith), we should proceed on the other evidence, which overwhelmingly rejects design. Graft 21:37, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * Yeah, there's a huge problem with how "irriducible complexity" is supposed to fit into scientific philosophy; although it is quite easy to show that a particular trait isn't irriducibly complex, it is impossible to prove something is. You can't prove a positive; only falsify negatives, this is what Karl Popper said what he said all swans are white. Dunc_Harris|☺ 09:48, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

title: Talk:Evolution/Creationism/DLR


text:
Georges Roesch

Roesch, Georges Henry, born Geneva 15 April 1891: died 7 November 1969, automotive engineer, was the Swiss-born son of a German-born blacksmith turned Geneva garage operator and his French-born wife.

He came to England in 1914 from Delaunay-Belleville, where he trained under Barbaroux, to work for Daimler. With little English and a German surname and accent the subsequent outbreak of the First World War meant twelve months under a cloud of suspicion until the authorities gave him the benefit of the doubt. In 1916, aged 25, he was hired by the London firm of Clément-Talbot as Chief Engineer. He developed a 1750 cc touring car for production after the end of hostilities. However in 1919 Talbot was acquired by Darracq and Company London, and the following year the resulting combination brought in Sunbeam to form S T D Motors. Talbot began to make the Coatalen and S T D Motors Paris designed Talbot 8-18 which was not a success. Roesch modified the design and turned it into a successful four-seater named Talbot's 10-23. The Talbot factory proved too small for volume production. Between 1920 and 1925 Roesch worked with STD under Louis Coatalen to develop a six-cylinder push-rod engine of striking simplicity and efficiency. The first successful post war Talbot was the Georges Roesch-designed six-cylinder high-speed tourer, Talbot 14-45, released in October 1926 for London's Motor Show. Roesch had been called back from Paris, where he was working under Coatalen, to the dilapidated Talbot works in 1925 and chose to design a relatively expensive low-volume car to fit Talbot's capabilities that might save the Talbot business. The 14-45 was the star of the 1926 Motor Show. From that point forward all Roesch's Talbot cars sold well. Certain weaknesses of the 14-45 were established and remedied and because it would comfortably reach 75 mph Roesch renamed the car his Talbot 75. His engine was "uncannily smooth" spinning effortlessly to provide its astonishingly high output.

The Rootes Group took over Talbot in 1935. The first Rootes Sunbeam, named the Thirty, designed by Georges Roesch, was propelled with a new 100 mph 4503 cc straight-eight engine. There may have been as many as eight prototypes made and some were displayed at the 1936 Motor Show but the new model did not go into production and Roesch left Sunbeam-Talbot going to David Brown in 1939 to develop a tractor design. Dispirited he left David Brown and joined Frank Whittle's Power Jets. He continued to work on gas turbines for this rest of his career.

Character
Georges Roesch was not a boastful or articulate man. An insight into his irascible perfectionism may be gained from the report that he refused ever to have a vacuum cleaner in his house because he found none of the existing vacuum cleaner designs satisfactory.

title: Georges Roesch


text:
Arthur P. Bagby

Arthur Pendleton Bagby (1794 – September 21, 1858) was the tenth Governor of the U.S. state of Alabama from 1837 to 1841. Born in Louisa County, Virginia, in 1794, he studied law and was admitted to the bar in 1819, practicing in Claiborne, Alabama. He was a member of the Alabama State House of Representatives in 1821, 1822, 1824, and 1834–1836, serving as the youngest-ever speaker in 1822 and 1836, and he served in the Alabama State Senate in 1825. A slaveowner, he served in the U.S. Senate from November 21, 1841, when he was elected to fill the vacancy caused by Clement C. Clay's resignation, to June 16, 1848, when he resigned to become Minister to Russia from 1848 to 1849.

During his time in the Senate, he was chairman of the Committee on Territories, the Committee on Claims, and the Committee on Indian Affairs. As a Senator, he supported the annexation of Texas. Bagby died in 1858 in Mobile, Alabama, and he is interred in Magnolia Cemetery there.

Panic of 1837
During Bagby's administration, the country was plagued by economic depression due to the Panic of 1837. Bagby introduced measures to assist the state banks, but the state legislature rejected most measures. All the state banks were closed by Bagby's successor, Governor Benjamin Fitzpatrick.

Arthur P. Bagby, Jr.
His son, Arthur P. Bagby, Jr., was a Confederate colonel in the Civil War, who was assigned to command as a brigadier general on April 13, 1864, to rank from March 17, 1864, and as a major general on May 16, 1865, to rank from May 10, 1865, by General Edmund Kirby Smith in the Trans-Mississippi Department. Neither appointment was confirmed by the Confederate Senate, which had held its final session before the major general assignment.

Bagby's first wife, Emily Steele of Georgia, died in 1825 and is buried in Claiborne, Alabama.

title: Arthur P. Bagby


text:
Our House (American TV series)

Our House is an American drama television series that aired on NBC for two seasons from September 11, 1986, to May 8, 1988. The series centers on the Witherspoon family and the challenges they face adjusting to life with three generations living in the same house.

The series was created by James Lee Barrett, who died the year after its cancellation.

Synopsis
After his son John dies, retired widower Gus Witherspoon (Wilford Brimley) invites his daughter-in-law Jessica Witherspoon (Deidre Hall) and her three children to move to Los Angeles and live with him until Jessie gets back on her feet financially.

Despite protests from her children, fifteen-year-old Kris (Shannen Doherty); twelve-year-old David (Chad Allen); and eight-year-old Molly (Keri Houlihan) they, Jessie, and their basset hound Arthur leave Fort Wayne, Indiana, to start a new life in California. As they settle in with Gus, they realize just how difficult he can be to live with. The majority of the plots each week centers on the conflicts which tend to arise when an extended family must live together in the same house. As man of the house, Gus imposes rules on his three grandkids the same way he had raised John (and also John's brother Ben, who is seen in a two part episode); ultimately, however, he learns ways of conveying lessons to the kids without being gruff. Jessie and the kids eventually learn that beneath Gus' stern facade is a wise man, well versed in the ways of the world, who cares about them very much.

Each of the episode's five acts (before the commercial break) ends with a freeze frame shot which then occupies one of several rooms in an abstract rendering of a house figure. As the episode unfolds, more rooms are filled until finally—when the dilemma has been resolved—the final piece is put in place, completing the house.

John Witherspoon (played by Patrick Duffy) is seen in one episode and in the occasional flashback.

Cast

 * Wilford Brimley as Gus Witherspoon
 * Deidre Hall as Jessica "Jessie" Witherspoon
 * Shannen Doherty as Kris Witherspoon
 * Chad Allen as David Witherspoon
 * Keri Houlihan as Molly Witherspoon
 * Gerald S. O'Loughlin as Joe Kaplan

Reception
Upon the show's 1986 premiere, the Associated Press called it "a family show suitable for framing." Despite positive reviews, the series was not a ratings success in spite of a promising start, likely owing to being scheduled Sundays at 7 PM (EST) opposite CBS's powerhouse 60 Minutes and numerous overruns by NFL games on its own network. The series ranked 59th in its first season (12.9 rating) and 71st in its second (10.9 rating).

The Inspiration Network re-aired the show in the US from October 18, 2010, to December 31, 2011. Prior to that, reruns of the show aired on The Family Channel in the early 1990s and on the Faith & Values Channel, Pax TV and Odyssey Channel later that decade.

title: Our House (American TV series)


text:
Hugh McVay

Hugh McVay (April 29, 1766 – May 9, 1851) was the ninth governor of the U.S. state of Alabama from July 17 to November 30, 1837. He was born in South Carolina.

Early career
McVay moved from South Carolina to the Territory of Mississippi and represented Madison County in the Alabama Legislature from 1811 to 1818. He then moved to Lauderdale County and represented Lauderdale County in the 1819 Alabama Constitutional Convention. McVay lived in the community of Mars Hill, Alabama and is buried there.

Alabama Congress
McVay was in the Alabama House of Representatives from 1820 to 1825. He then served in the Alabama State Senate from 1825 to 1844.

Governor of Alabama
McVay was elected Speaker of the Senate in 1836 and became acting governor of Alabama in 1837 when Governor Clement C. Clay was appointed to the United States Senate. McVay served as governor from July 17, 1837, to November 30, 1837, when Governor Arthur P. Bagby took office.

title: Hugh McVay