text:
Kenji Nojima

Kenji Nojima (野島 健児) is a Japanese voice actor and singer affiliated with the voice talent agency Aoni Production. His first major role in voice-over was Spark in the Record of Lodoss War: Chronicles of the Heroic Knight series. He voiced Hikaru Ichijyo in a number of Macross-related video games in the 2000s. Other major roles include Yuto Kiba in High School DxD, Jade in Ultimate Muscle, Nobuchika Ginoza in Psycho-Pass, Keisaku Sato in Shakugan no Shana, Taihei Doma in Himouto! Umaru-chan, Yuna Roma Seiran in Mobile Suit Gundam SEED Destiny, Hazard/Submarine Robo in Sortie! Machine Robo Rescue, Prince Cayenne in Lady Jewelpet, Mamoru Chiba/Tuxedo Mask in Sailor Moon Crystal, Fumito Nanahara in Blood-C, and Masaki in Time of Eve. He is the son of Akio Nojima and is the younger brother of Hirofumi Nojima. He married Chie Sawaguchi in 2004 and has two children. Their eldest son, Touya Nojima (野島透也, Nojima Tōya), started working as an actor and voice actor since 2020.

title: Kenji Nojima


text:
Learjet

Learjet was a manufacturer of business jets for civilian and military use based in Wichita, Kansas, United States. Founded in the late 1950s by William Powell Lear as Swiss American Aviation Corporation, it became a subsidiary of Canadian Bombardier Aerospace in 1990, which marketed the company’s aircraft as the "Bombardier Learjet Family". The 3,000th Learjet was delivered in June 2017. The Learjet line was once sufficiently popular that the Learjet name became synonymous and interchangeable with the terms business jet or private jet in the popular vernacular. In February 2021, Bombardier announced the end of production for all new Learjet aircraft in 2021, with the continuation of support and maintenance for aircraft currently in service.

History

Learjet was one of the first companies to manufacture a private, luxury aircraft. Lear's preliminary design was based upon an experimental American military aircraft known as the Marvel, substituting fuselage-mounted turbojet engines for ducted fan turboshaft engines. However, that preliminary design was abandoned and the final Learjet design was instead adapted from an abortive 1950s Swiss ground-attack fighter aircraft, the FFA P-16.

The basic structure of the Swiss P-16 aircraft was seen by Bill Lear and his team as a good starting point to the development of a business jet, and formed the Swiss American Aircraft Corporation, located in Altenrhein, Switzerland, and staffed with design engineers from Switzerland, Germany and Britain. The aircraft was originally intended to be called the SAAC-23. The wing with its distinctive tip fuel tanks and landing gear of the first Learjets were little changed from those used by the fighter prototypes. Although building the first jet started in Switzerland, the tooling for building the aircraft was moved to Wichita, Kansas, in 1962. Bill Jr stated that it took too long to get anything done in Switzerland despite the cheaper labor costs. LearJet was in a temporary office which opened in September 1962 while the plant at Wichita's airport was under construction. On February 7, 1963, assembly of the first Learjet began. The next year, the company was renamed the Lear Jet Corporation.

The original Learjet 23 was a six- to eight-seater and first flew on October 7, 1963, with the first production model being delivered in October 1964. Just over a month later, Lear Jet became a publicly owned corporation. Several derived models followed, with the Model 24 first flying on February 24, 1966, and the Model 25 first flying on August 12, 1966. On September 19 of the same year, the company was renamed Lear Jet Industries Inc.

Merger with Gates Aviation

On April 10, 1967, Bill Lear's approximately 60% share of the venture was acquired by the Gates Rubber Company of Denver, Colorado, for US$ 27 million. Lear remained on the company board until April 2, 1969, when the company was merged with Gates Aviation Corporation and was renamed Gates Learjet Corporation. In 1971, the first Model 25 powered by a Garrett TFE731-2 turbofan engine was flown. This aircraft later became the successful Learjet 35. That year, the company was awarded the President's "E" Award for promoting export sales.

In 1974, the worldwide Learjet fleet had exceeded the one-million flight hours mark and, in 1975, the company produced its 500th jet, both industry firsts. By late 1976, the company increased monthly aircraft production to ten.

On August 24, 1977, the Learjet 28 made its first flight. It was based on the Learjet 25, but received a completely new wing fitted with winglets. These resulted in both improved performance and fuel economy and inspired the name "Longhorn" for the short-lived Learjet 28/29 and for some of the more successful models that followed.

On April 19, 1979, the prototype for the Model 54/55/56 series made its first flight, and on July 7, 1983, a standard production Model 55 set six new time-to-climb records for its weight class.

In 1984, Gates Learjet announced the start of their Aerospace Division, a high technology endeavor. However, by the end of the year the company had ceased production of its commercial jets in an effort to reduce inventories. This lasted until February 1986, when the company headquarters were transferred to Tucson, Arizona, and production was restarted both in Wichita and Tucson.

On September 10, 1985, the Aerospace Division was awarded a contract to produce parts for the Space Shuttle's main engines. In 1987, Gates Learjet was acquired by Integrated Acquisition and the next year the name was changed to Learjet Corporation. By January 1989, all production had been moved from the Tucson facility back to Wichita with an employment of 1,250.

Acquisition by Bombardier
In 1990, Canadian company Bombardier Aerospace purchased the Learjet Corporation. The aircraft were then marketed as the "Bombardier Learjet Family". On October 10, 1990, the Learjet 60 mid-sized aircraft had its first flight, followed on October 7, 1995, by the Learjet 45.

In October 2007, Bombardier Learjet launched a brand new aircraft program, the Learjet 85. It was the first FAR Part-25 all-composite business aircraft. Bombardier celebrated the 45th anniversary of the first flight by a Learjet with 2008's Year of Learjet campaign. One of its highlights was British Formula One racing driver Lewis Hamilton racing a Learjet and winning an event at the Farnborough Air Show. On October 28, 2015 Bombardier announced cancellation of the Learjet 85 program.

On February 11, 2021, Bombardier announced the end production of all Learjet aircraft. Bombardier also announced they would continue to fully support the Learjet fleet well into the future, and launched the Learjet RACER re-manufacturing program for the Learjet 40 and Learjet 45 aircraft. As Bombardier focuses on its larger Challenger and Global jets, the final aircraft, a Learjet 75, was delivered on 28 March 2022 after 60 years of production, delivering more than 3,000 aircraft, of which more than 2,000 remain in service.

Location
Learjet started off in Wichita, Kansas, and as of 2013 has over 3,200 employees. Wichita was not the only candidate for the location of Lear's project. Grand Rapids, Michigan, and Ohio were also both locations that were being considered. There were already a few other aircraft companies that were located in Kansas, which meant there were many more potential workers who would possess the skills that Lear needed to run his company in the design and manufacturing of the aircraft. Lear was offered an industrial revenue bond of 1.2 million US dollars. This would be known as the first historical industrial revenue bond offered by the city. To this day, the Learjet facility is still located in Wichita, Kansas, and is currently getting ready to be renovated, by expanding the Flight Test Center and building a new center for delivery.

Brand timeline

 * Lear Jet : 1962–1969
 * Gates Learjet : 1969–1988
 * LearJet : 1988–1990
 * Bombardier Learjet : 1990–2021

Aircraft

 * Learjet 23, 1962–1966 : first Learjet, GE CJ-610 turbojets
 * Learjet 24, 1966–1977 : increased MTOW version
 * Learjet 25, 1966–1982 : stretched 24
 * Learjet 28/29, 1977–1982 : 25 fuselage + new wing
 * Learjet 31, 1987–2003 : 28/29 wing + 35/36 fuselage & engines
 * Learjet 35/36, 1973–1994 : 25 stretch + TFE731 turbofans
 * Learjet 40, 2002–2013 : shortened 45
 * Learjet 45, 1995–2013 : new, clean-sheet design, TFE731 turbofans
 * Learjet 55, 1981–1990 : 28/29 wing, larger fuselage, TFE731 turbofans
 * Learjet 60, 1991–2012 : stretched 55, PW300 turbofans
 * Learjet 70/75, 2013–2022 : improved 45

 * Learjet 85, 2007–2015 (cancelled): new design, composite, PW300 turbofans

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

title: Learjet


text:
Bunyu

Bunyu is an oil-rich Indonesian island situated to the north of Tarakan City, in the eastern Celebes Sea off the north-eastern coast of Borneo in North Kalimantan province. The administrative area comprising Bunyu District is composed of eleven islands - Pulau Baru, Pulau Batok, Pulau Bunyu, Pulau Burung, Pulau Papa, Pulau Tibi Barat, Pulau Tibi Lumot, Pulau Tibi Selatan, Pulau Tibi Timur, Pulau Tibi Utara and Pulau Titus - all sharing the postal code of 77281. It lies just off the northern side of the delta of the Sesayap River, with the southern side of the delta having Tarakan Island, and the north Mandul Island.

Bunyu is of economic importance as a producer of petroleum, and coal. The Mundra Thermal Power Station in Gujarat, India uses coal imported from a mine in Bunyu Island, under a 15-year fuel supply agreement signed with Adani Enterprises/Adani Power.

Traffic

 * Bunyu Airport

title: Bunyu


text:
Patara (Lycia)

Patara (Patara, Lycian: 𐊓𐊗𐊗𐊀𐊕𐊀, Pttara; Πάταρα) was an ancient and flourishing maritime and commercial city that was for a period the capital of Lycia. The site is located on the Turkish coast near to the village of Gelemiş, in Antalya Province.

Saint Nicholas was born in the town in 270, and lived most of his life in the nearby town of Myra.

Only part of the site has been excavated and renovated. The protection and archaeology of the site have been subject to battles between archaeologists and illegal developers.

Hittite Period
Patara was referred to as Patar in Hittite texts: "King Tudhaliya IV (1236-1210 BC), after the Lukka expedition, came to this city with his army and made offerings."

Iron Age
The city was said to have been founded by Patarus (Πάταρος), a son of Apollo. It was noted during antiquity for the temple and oracle of Apollo, second only in importance to that of Delphi. The god is often given the surname Patareus. Herodotus says that the oracle of Apollo was delivered by a priestess only during a certain period of the year, and Servius mentions that this period was the six winter months. It seems certain that Patara received Dorian settlers from Crete; and the worship of Apollo was certainly Dorian.

Ancient writers mentioned Patara as one of the principal cities of Lycia. It was Lycia's primary seaport, and a leading city of the Lycian League, having 3 votes, the maximum.

The city, with the rest of Lycia, surrendered to Alexander the Great in 333 BC. During the Wars of the Diadochi, it was occupied in turn by Antigonus and Demetrius, before finally falling to the Ptolemies. In this period the first city walls were built. Strabo informs us that Ptolemy Philadelphus of Egypt, who enlarged the city, gave it the name of Arsinoë after Arsinoe II of Egypt, his wife and sister, but it continued to be called by its ancient name, Patara. Antiochus III captured Patara in 196 BC and it became the capital of Lycia. The Lycian League was formally established in 176 BC.

The Rhodians occupied the city and as a Roman ally, the city with the rest of Lycia was granted autonomy in 167 BC. In 88 BC, the city suffered siege by Mithridates VI, king of Pontus and was captured by Brutus and Cassius, during their campaign against Mark Antony and Augustus. It was spared the massacres that were inflicted on nearby Xanthos. Patara was formally annexed by the Roman Empire in 43 AD and attached to Pamphylia.

Patara is mentioned in the New Testament as the place where Paul of Tarsus and Luke changed ships. The city was Christianized early, and several early bishops are known; according to Le Quien, they include:

 * Methodius, dubious, more probably bishop of Olympus
 * Eudemus, present at the Council of Nicaea (325)
 * Eutychianus, at the Council of Seleucia (359)
 * Eudemus, at the Council of Constantinople (381)
 * Cyrinus, at the Council of Chalcedon (451)
 * Licinius, at the Council of Constantinople (536)
 * Theodulus, at the Council of Constantinople (879-880)

Saints Leo and Paregorius were martyred at Patara around 260 AD. Nicholas of Myra was born at Patara around March 15, 270 AD.

In the 5th century AD the city was reduced in size through the construction of a strong fortification wall adjoining the Bouleuterion using stone from the nearby structures.

Patara is mentioned among the Lycian bishoprics in the Acts of Councils (Hierocl. p. 684). The Notitiae Episcopatuum mention it among the suffragans of Myra as late as the thirteenth century.

The city remained of some importance during the Byzantine Empire as a way-point for trade and pilgrims. After the Seljuk Sultanate of Rum acquisition in 1211 the city declined and appears to have been deserted by 1340.

With the demise of the bishopric as a residential see, Patara became a titular see and is included as in the Catholic Church's list of such sees.

It was one of the four largest settlements in the Xanthos Valley and the only one open to the sea, situated 60 stadia to the southeast of the mouth of the river.

Archaeology
In 1836 the French archaeologist Charles Texier explored the site followed by Charles Fellows in 1838.

Excavations were begun in 1988 and only in 1991 was the Bouleuterion recognised.

In 1993 the Stadiasmus Patarensis was unearthed, a monumental Roman pillar on which is inscribed in Greek a dedication to Claudius and an official announcement of roads being built by the governor, Quintus Veranius Nepos, in the province of Lycia et Pamphylia, giving place names and distances, essentially a monumental public itinerarium. The pillar is on display in the garden of the Antalya Museum.

The site is currently being excavated each year by a team of Turkish archaeologists. At the end of 2007, all the sand had been cleared from the theatre and some other buildings, and the columns on the main street had been partially re-erected (with facsimile capitals). The excavations revealed masonry in remarkable condition.

In 2020 several discoveries were made:
 * a 10th statue of a woman from the theatre.
 * a kitchen and a "women's room", with mirrors, ornaments and fragrance pots, from the 4th c. BC. These rooms, known as gynaeconitis, were located away from the residence's entrance in order to minimise contact with men from outside the family, and were where women nursed their children, wove thread and wool
 * a cylindrical ancient Greek altar carved with a coiled snake.

The site of the oracle and temple of Apollo have not been found.

Location
The site is a plain surrounded by hills and included in ancient times a large natural harbour, since silted up. Northeast of the harbour is Tepecik Hill upon which there is a Bronze Age site and which was the acropolis on which the city was founded. The city later spread to the south and west of the hill.

Monuments

The theatre was rebuilt under Antoninus Pius in 147 AD after an earthquake; its diameter is 265 feet, and held about 6000 spectators.

The Bouleuterion or prytaneion is well-preserved and has been further restored. It was the capital's assembly hall of the Lycian League and overlooked the theatre the Agora in the East. It was constructed in the early 1st century BC and held about 1400 people. In the centre of the cavea is a tribunalia, seats reserved for governors. The first alterations, when the cavea was enlarged and the semicircular wall in the west was connected to the northern and southern walls, are linked to the annexation of Lycia as a Roman province, most probably under Claudius (r. 43-51 AD) or Nero (r. 51–69). After a major earthquake in 142/143 AD a stoa was added outside and a stage building inside, as it was also to be used as a concert hall (Odeion). In the 5th c. AD it was incorporated into the new fortification wall as a bastion.

The main street connected the inner harbour to the Agora and is one of the widest and best-preserved streets in Lycia. Both sides of the street are lined with Ionic-order colonnades, with granite columns on the east and marble columns on the west.

The well-preserved Arch of Medustus is the north gate of the city and a magnificent triple vaulted triumphal arch built by the citizens of Patara in about 100 AD in honour of Mettias Medustus, the Governor of Lycia.

Several baths are known; the harbour (or datepalm) baths, the Vespasian (or Nero) baths, central baths, small baths and Byzantine baths.

The lighthouse stood at the entrance to the major naval and trading port of Lycia, which had an outer and an inner harbour. It was built in 60 AD during the reign of Nero, according to an inscription, and is one of the oldest surviving. It has a unique structure rising 26 m on a magnificent 3-tiered square base.

Hadrian's Granary, so-named as it was built during his visit in 131 AD, lies on the side of the ancient harbour for storage of cereals and other goods to be shipped to Rome. It is 75m x 25m and was divided into 8 sections.

Parts of the site have been subject to illegal construction for agriculture, hotels and holiday villages despite legal protection, and destruction and vandalism are continuing problems.

The harbour is still apparent but it is a swamp, choked up with sand and bushes.

The aqueduct, which was built under Claudius and renovated under Vespasian after an earthquake, was 22.5 km long. It comprised five bridges as well as a rare inverted siphon or pressurised pipeline which is still largely intact. The siphon avoided the construction of tall expensive arches across a valley to support an open channel but instead had the problem of containing the water pressure in the siphon in an era when large diameter piping was difficult to make and seal. The pipes were carved from marble blocks with internal diameter of 0.28 m, each weighing up to 900 kg, laid on top of a 200 m long, 10 m high wall across an 18 m deep valley.

title: Patara (Lycia)


text:
Mount Tarakan

Tarakan volcano is located in Indonesia's Halmahera island, near the shore of Galela Bay north east of Dukono volcano. Tarakan consists of two large cinder cones, namely Tarakan Lamo (large Tarakan) and Tarakan Itji (small Tarakan).

title: Mount Tarakan


text:
Pułtusk

Pułtusk is a town in northeast Poland, by the river Narew. Located 70 km north of Warsaw in the Masovian Voivodeship, it has a population of 19,224 as of 2023. Known for its historic architecture and Europe's longest paved marketplace (380 m in length), it is a popular weekend destination for the residents of Warsaw.

Pułtusk is one of the oldest townships in Poland, having received city rights from Duke Siemowit I of Masovia in 1257. Throughout the 15th and 17th centuries, the settlement was a significant economic centre of Masovia. The favourable geographical placement of the town on the Narew, along which goods were transported to the port of Gdańsk on the Baltic Sea, contributed to the town's importance. Pułtusk was also the site of notable events, such as the Napoleon's 1806 battle, and the world's largest meteorite shower to date in 1868, among others.

Middle Ages
The town has existed since at least the 10th century. In the Middle Ages, the Castle in Pułtusk was one of the most important defensive forts in northern Masovia against the attacks of Old Prussians and Lithuanians. According to a legend, the town initially was known as Tusk; however, after a flood that destroyed half of the city, it was renamed as Pułtusk (Pół- or puł- being a Polish prefix for a half). Most historians believe that it was named after a small river known as Pełta.

From the 11th century onwards, the town belonged to the bishops of Płock. Due to a ford on the river located nearby, Pułtusk became an important centre of trade and commerce. It received its civic charter in 1257, modelled after that of Chełmno (Kulm Law). In 1440 an academy was founded in the town, and it became one of the most influential schools of higher education in the Polish Kingdom. Among its professors were Jakub Wujek and Piotr Skarga. By 1595 there were more than 600 students, and their number reached 900 by 1696.

The town was destroyed by Lithuanians in 1262 and 1324. In the 14th century, Pułtusk became the official seat of Płock bishops. The town was again burnt by Lithuanians in 1368, but following the Union of Krewo between Poland and Lithuania, the Lithuanian raids were stopped, and the town quickly recovered.

By the 15th century Pułtusk's merchants were among the richest in Poland. The town was granted a privileges of organizing nine grand fairs a year and two small markets a week. The city also gained much profit from exporting wood and grain to Gdańsk, as well as from mead and beer production.

In around 1405, the Mayor's House, today known as the "Polonia House" or "Polonia Castle", was constructed. In 1449 a Gothic church was added to the city's facilities. In the 16th century the castle was rebuilt by several renowned Italian architects, including Giovanni Battista of Venice and Bartolommeo Berrecci, and Giovanni Cini of Siena.

Early modern period
Pułtusk was located in the Masovian Voivodeship in the Greater Poland Province of the Polish Crown. In 1530 the first Masovian printing house was opened. In 1566 one of the first public theatres in Poland was established in Pułtusk. In the 16th century the town was visited by many notable individuals, such as King Sigismund III Vasa, and poets Jan Kochanowski and Maciej Kazimierz Sarbiewski. On 21 April 1703 during the Great Northern War, a decisive battle was fought in Pułtusk, where the Swedish army under Charles XII defeated and captured a large part of the Saxon army under Graf von Steinau. Although the town and the castle were initially conquered by Polish forces, they were later recaptured by the Swedish army, which looted and destroyed it.

After the Partitions of Poland, the town was annexed by the Kingdom of Prussia. The Polish forces of General Antoni Madaliński stationed in Pułtusk in 1794 declined to obey Prussian orders and started their march towards Kraków. This marked the start of the Kościuszko Uprising. Prussian rule lasted only a few years.

Under the partitions
Another Battle of Pułtusk was fought on 26 December 1806, between forces of Imperial Russia and Imperial France. The battle became so famous that its name is inscribed on the Arc de Triomphe in Paris. After the fall of Warsaw in 1809, Pułtusk became the temporary capital of the Duchy of Warsaw. After the fall of Napoléon Bonaparte, the town became part of so-called Congress Poland within the Russian Partition of Poland.

During the November Uprising, the town changed hands several times. In 1831 Russian forces were carrying a cholera epidemic when they entered the town, resulting in high fatalities. Pułtusk inhabitants took part also in the January Uprising. Afterwards the town was utterly destroyed and Russian officials sent many prominent citizens to Siberia and internal exile. On 30 January 1868 a meteorite fell in Pułtusk. It was one of the biggest to fall in Europe. Large chunks (9 kg each) were acquired by the British Museum, which has them on display in London.

Although, the first Jews settled in the town in the 15th century, the Jewish community only started to flourish in the 19th century after a large influx of Jews. At the start of the 19th century, about 120 Jews lived in the city. Others lived in shtetls outside the city. Throughout the 19th century, though, the Jewish population increased rapidly to nearly 7,000 in the mid-19th century as a result of Russian discriminatory policies and the expulsion of Jews from Russia to Russian-controlled Congress Poland (see Pale of Settlement).

The great fire in 1875 destroyed most of the city. It was depicted by Nobel Laureate Henryk Sienkiewicz in his novel Quo Vadis as the great fire of Rome.

By the year 1900, around 6,000 Jews lived in Pułtusk. Many had migrated to nearby Warsaw before and after World War I. Others emigrated to the United States. Following the war, the Jewish population rose to about 7,500 and accounted for roughly half of the total population of the town.

During the First World War Pultusk was the scene of another battle on 13 July 1915 when German forces attempted to cross the river Narew at Pułtusk. The 40th Infantry Division and the 50th Infantry Division of the imperial Russian Army successfully prevented them.

Interbellum and World War II
The town was reintegrated with Poland, when the country regained independence following World War I in 1918. During the Polish-Soviet War, it was fiercely defended by Poles on August 9–10, 1920, at the eve of the Battle of Warsaw. On August 13, the Russians captured the town, and then they massacred captured Polish soldiers. On August 17, the Polish 9th Infantry Division recaptured the town. In the interbellum the Polish 13th Infantry Regiment was stationed in Pułtusk. In 1931 the town had some 16,800 inhabitants.

As a result of the German invasion of Poland, which started World War II in September 1939, Pułtusk was occupied by the Wehrmacht and incorporated into Nazi Germany. Already on September 12–13, 1939, the Einsatzgruppe V entered the town to commit atrocities against the population. Nazi Germany operated a police prison, court prison and forced labour camp in the town. The German police carried out executions of Poles in the local prison in November and December 1939. During the German occupation, approximately 50% of the city's inhabitants, mostly Jews, were expelled or deported, some to Nazi concentration camps. In 1941-1945 it was renamed in German as Ostenburg, to erase traces of Polish origin. On December 17, 1942, the Gestapo carried out a public execution of four members of the Home Army, the leading Polish resistance organization. In the battle for Pułtusk during later World War II, over 16,000 soldiers of the Soviet Red Army were killed. As a result of the battle, approximately 85% of the city was destroyed.

On September 7, 1939, the city became under the control of Nazi Germany. On September 27, the Germans deported most of the Jews to concentration camps. Some eventually made their way to the Soviet border but many died in the camps. In the 21st century, descendants of Pułtusk Jewry are found mainly in Israel, the United States, Canada, and Argentina.

Modern times
In 1950, a rail line connecting Pułtusk with Nasielsk Railway Station was built.

In 1975, the Science Center of the Mazovian Center for Scientific Research was opened in the town. In 1993, Pułtusk hosted the first ever biennial meeting of the World International Advisory Committee of UNESCO's Memory of the World Programme to discuss and inscribe items onto the Register.

Points of interest
Currently Pułtusk is one of the most picturesque towns of Masovia. Located on the Narew river, it is one of the most popular weekend places for residents of Warsaw. Points of interest include:
 * Collegiate Church of Annunciation
 * Small Gothic church with unique Renaissance stuccos
 * The Old Town market (reputedly the longest market square in Europe)
 * Town Hall with 15th century Tower (it now houses a Regional Museum)
 * Polonia Castle (now operated as a hotel named Dom Polonii)
 * Ogródek Jordanowski, one of the first children's playgrounds in Poland
 * Monument to murdered Jewish residents of Pułtusk. The population of Pułtusk included approximately 9,000 Jews in 1939 before the Holocaust in Poland
 * Soviet military cemetery

Education

 * Pułtusk Academy of Humanities

Sports
The local football club is Nadnarwianka Pułtusk. It competes in the lower leagues.

Twin towns — Sister cities
Pułtusk is twinned with:
 * 🇩🇪 Ganderkesee, Germany
 * 🇫🇷 Montmorency, France
 * 🇺🇸 New Britain, United States
 * 🇸🇰 Senica, Slovakia
 * 🇭🇺 Szerencs, Hungary

title: Pułtusk


text:
Category talk:Pseudoscience

Parapsychology
Many of the inclusions are subjective. Is it right to describe all parapsychology as pseudoscience? There are pseudoscientists working in the field (and indeed physics, chemistry etc - witness the cold fusion debacle), but there are also certain people who attempt to employ scientific method. --MacRusgail (talk) 16:01, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

 * Those people do not self describe as parapsychologists; they look for a scientific explanation. For example, Chris French looking at it from a psychology perspective. Considering that science operates under Methodological naturalism and appeals to the supernatural are essentially a form of special pleading which make a stab at wearing the guise of science while they do it. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:48, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

What a mess!
A few notes: My attempt to clean it all up is being hampered by editors who do not understand the category guidelines (or convention - they vary!), do not understand the hierarchical nature of topics, and attempt to link everything to everything else. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:22, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I have cleaned up the category page:
 * removed links to project namespace
 * removed redundant bare url (ext link to dictionary.com - hey we got our own!)
 * removed redundant wikilinks
 * tweaked layout
 * I am now trying to clean out the contents. It was a mish-mash of over 250 articles that readers would struggle to wade through.
 * Created Category:Pseudoscience literature
 * Removed companies, products, unrelated lists, and minor topics that had little to do with the subject.
 * Please focus on the content and policy/guideline issues rather than the editors involved.
 * There seems to be a great deal of disagreement on whether or not some of the articles are relevant to the subject. Discuss rather than edit-war please if you want to change consensus. --Ronz (talk) 20:50, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

 * (edit conflict)
 * You know, I don't really overly care about this category, or even this topic (and not even certain how I saw/got to this page).
 * But you would be hard pressed to claim that I do not understand the category guidelines and policies : )
 * Anyway, in reading the arbcomm case, and associated pages, it seems clear that this is a drama-laden topic, and by extension the pages thereof.
 * So I would think that it would be a good idea to at least provide the opportunity for "enthusiastic editors" to check out certain project pages. Links are cheap. And having links to project pages on a category page (as opposed to categorised IN the category) is very much not uncommon.
 * Our goal should be to reduce disruption, and if a couple links may help to prevent future disruption, then that's a no brainer, I would think. - jc37 20:53, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * "Our goal should be to reduce disruption" Having some familiarity with some of the drama around this topic, let's be clear: our goal first is to improve this encyclopedia. --Ronz (talk) 20:59, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Lol, yes, and one way we do that is by reducing disruption.
 * I'm not sure what your concerns are, or even what edits your concerned with.
 * For me it's that the links to the Project pages which cover this topic broadly (WP:FRINGE for example) should be linked in the category page intro. In looking over other situations in categories, it would seem a hatnote would be the best way to go with it.
 * If you're interested in arguing what should be a member of this category, sorry, I'm not who you're looking for. - jc37 21:03, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Since the links are already here at the top of the talk page, I just added a hatnote to see the talk page. I still think that a link to a related project page should be at the top, but for now, this should suffice. - jc37 21:56, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * One of the problems that's come up is that some articles about practioners/vendors/applications of PS are often placed in the category, such as Samuel Hahnemann, Bach Flower Remedies, Blacklight Power, Ionized bracelet. If these don't belong in PS, then where? Perhaps subcats for "Pseudoscience products", "Pseudoscience advocates", "Pseudoscience companies"? LeadSongDog come howl!  22:41, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

 * As I have already said at the head of this thread they don't need a category relating to pseudoscience since it a non-existent or tenuous relationship. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 07:00, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

So it remains a mess...
...because nothing gets done. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 03:50, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Vani Hari
Vani Hari : pseudoscience?

First of all, she's a person and the article is a BLP, not an article about a theory. I scan for other person's in the list and i find Carl Baugh, a creationist. I find Fred A. Leuchter, a Holocaust denier. These are the people she's being lumped in with for calling out certain chemicals in foods that have some scientific support for being harmful, and for opposing wholesale antiobiotic use in raising animals, and for promoting diets with less sugar and more whole foods? Perhaps it's her support for the concept of toxins and detoxification that has people classifying her as pseudoscience? But these are in fact real concepts within science. Maybe it's based on some long-deleted tweet of hers about vaccination or the air in an airplane being pumped with nitrogen? Those would be considered embarrassing early mistakes, but not a systematic pushing of some kind of pseudoscience.

The guidelines for deciding whether something is pseudoscience states:

It seems to me that the bulk of her work is actually fairly in line with generally accepted science, and that she has a few vociferous critics who call her work "pseudoscience" but as stated in the above guideline, this does not qualify her for this category. Note that middle of the road scientists such as Dr Marion Nestle, who is in a fairly good position to judge, do not call her work pseudoscience, and merely nudge her to include more nuance in her explanations of science as well as to prioritize her focus to be more effective. That's not pseudoscience. So, i propose removing her from this category, unless a very strong and clear case can be made in accordance with the guidelines. Note that "pseudoscience" is generally seen as pejorative, so special care should be taken when applying this term to a WP:BLP. SageRad (talk) 11:07, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

 * Hari certainly does not belong in this category. I had never heard of her work before, but it is clear that she is merely a food activist with a strong agenda. One need not agree with all of her concerns but they are founded on selective use and interpretation of existing scientific research, not upon in themselves false principles which she claims are scientific. HGilbert (talk) 11:23, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

subjective
inclusion of topics here is very subjective - couldn't we include tasseography?Vorbee (talk) 21:32, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Inclusion is based on reliable sources. Additionally, for something to be pseudoscience it is typically considered that it be presented by proponents as if it were scientific, or supported by science, when it is not. Tasseography, a divination practice, does not meet that description. But more importantly, "pseudoscience" is not supported by the sources.    Adrian [232] 16:41, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Cleanup
This category is literally overflowing with articles, and has been for several years. Most could be dropped down into new or existing subcategories (or already have been). Obviously, the main article and the main list should stay here, though. 2600:387:A:3:0:0:0:B0 (talk) 03:43, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Creation, ICR, Chiropractic...really?
Aside from the insane amount of non-applicable categories here (Nazi science, chiropractic, Natural News, etc), I don't believe that interpretation of outcomes by scientific outcomes can really be in this category. I.E. Institute for Creation Research, Flood Theory, etc. Just because the majority disagree with the interpretation, does not therefore mean it is immediate quackery. I could not find any substantiated evidence that the PhD's at the ICR were using fake or wrong methods. And as a PhD student at CU Colorado having had a lecture (that I disagreed with) from an ICR PhD, I can attest to this. Nothing in the methods are fake, wrong, or incorrect...just their interpretation. But that is all opinion, and shouldn't fall in this category. Otherwise, we need to put Pluto in here since many scientists still agree that it is a planet. Frankly this "topic" is an excuse for pseudo-intellectuals to place their hated articles in. 73.217.43.51 (talk) 02:59, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The Pluto-planet thing is about the definition of the word "planet", and therefore by definition an arbitrary decision and not a scientific question. The fact that you think this could even qualify as a pseudoscience shows that you don't have the first idea what science and pseudoscience is. (Your remarks on other examples confirm this.) The articles, on the other hand, contain reliable sources calling those things pseudoscience. Those sources are more important than the opinion of some random guy on the internet.
 * But the category is too big, and maybe there should be more subcategories like Category:Pseudopsychology, Category:Pseudobiology and so on. Category:Pseudophysics and Category:Pseudomedicine already exist, and some articles should go there. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:46, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Category:Pseudomedicine is a redirect to Category:Alternative medicine... --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:49, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Trace Amounts film
This is an anti-vaccine film about vaccines causing autism. It is a completely unbalanced review. Volunteer1234 (talk) 18:46, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

title: Category talk:Pseudoscience


text:
User talk:Dgreen

Welcome to the Wikipedia
Here are some links I find useful:

 * Policy Library
 * Utilities
 * Cite your sources
 * Verifiability
 * Wikiquette
 * Civility
 * Conflict resolution
 * Brilliant prose
 * Neutral point of view
 * Pages needing attention
 * Peer review
 * Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense
 * Village pump
 * Boilerplate text
 * IRC channel
 * Mailing lists
 * Current polls

Feel free to ask me anything the links and talk pages don't answer. You can sign your name by typing 4 tildes, likes this: ~.

Cheers, Sam [Spade] 04:10, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

title: User talk:Dgreen


text:
Talk:Mpemba effect

Archives

 * Archive 1
 * Archive 2

Wording
The second paragraph says "common knowledge according to Aristotle during his time", but that's not my understanding of what Aristotle said "the water has previously been warmed". Water that has previously been warmed is not the same as water that is warm now.

Took another stab at top-line wording. The effect is an observation (valid or not) of comparisons, not some set of incidences, examples, or occasions.

Diagram
I've added a relevant diagram (already available on Wikimedia Commons), and also expanded the Historical section a little, discussing the work of James Black. I know that this has been a contentious topic in the past, but I thought that it was worth gently revisiting; I've tried to be cautious, but might reasonably be accused of over-interpreting Farenheit's contributions in the light of subsequent knowledge; I'm also rather relying on Black's description of Farenheit's work, as my Latin isn't up to scratch. Cluebot archiving removed so that we can have a chat! Klbrain (talk) 12:04, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

This diagram needs to be removed as its clearly a faulty experiment. At equal temperatures before freezing the rate of temperature decline should be the same -they are not and so it is clear that the hot sample is actually being cooled more quickly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:86E:7200:A0E1:F55A:6070:B475 (talk) 15:29, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

I have remove the diagram because it fails to meet Wikipedia’s standards for reliability, specifically because it is only a self-published source. The fact that it comes from a commercially self-promoting website makes it further suspect.

Also (as noted elsewhere on this page) the removed diagram is suspect because it purports to show water freezing at 2-3 degrees, not zero.

Worse, the diagram shows the colder water freezing first! Freezing is where the flat part happens. Whether one sample or the other fell below some lower point (reported as “zero”) has no bearing on freezing, or, therefor, on the Mpemba effect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slgaiser (talk • contribs) 02:47, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

 * Note this section is not about the current image, but rather about File:Mpemba-simple.svg, which is no longer in the article.
 * As for the image currently in this article, the flat part indicates where the phase transition is occurring, and freezing isn't complete until the flat part ends. The cold water starts its phase transition first, but the hot water completes its phase transition sooner while the cold water isn't yet fully frozen. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:35, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Quite right. I stand corrected.Slgaiser (talk) 18:49, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Unbelivable: The image (https://www.picotech.com/library/results/freezing-hot-cold-water) must shame anyone who has seen this topic - since 2010! Especially the originator, who sell measurement equipment. Water freezes at 0°C! I swapped the image for one from "Mpemba Effect Demystified" https://doi.org/10.31224/osf.io/3ejnh.Freezer18 (talk) 13:26, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that's a way better image. However, are you sure of the license? You uploaded that as a public domain dedication, but I see no indication in the source material that it's public domain. If the copyright holder has not released it, then the image will be deleted, we can't use it, and the horrible previous image would be restored. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:15, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * It's taken form a preprint, link above, it's CC0=public domainFreezer18 (talk) 19:41, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

No one seems to mention freezer thermostat as a possible cause
If you put something hot into a freezer it will switch the thermostat to turn the freezer on. This will cause the temperature inside the freezer to drop and so cause the water to turn to ice more quickly. There is hysteresis on these thermostats so they will reduce the temperature in the freezer to a lower temperature than the set temperature. To do a controlled test you would need to put the hot water ice cube trays cold ones in the same freezer at the same time. Why hasn't someone done this with a camera lens inside the freezer to monitor exactly when each one turns to ice? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caparn (talk • contribs) 16:49, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I would be WP:BOLD and do it myself but I'm not certain I could avoid doing so in a manner that would amount to original research. But if a youtube video from someone whose credentials consist of "some college" can be cited I'll go for it. Mattman00000 (talk) 13:01, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

 * Bullseye @Caparn. It is comfirmed that most of the reproduction are wrong if they don't put sample together into the freezer to deal with the thermostat control variance. I bet many "scientist" dare to admit that such simple blunders.  This is the nih.gov experiment : Questioning the Mpemba effect: hot water does not cool more quickly than cold . This whole wiki page must include this "simple" finding.

 * I am pretty sure that many people have demonstrated the effect using outdoor as the "freezer". Don't forget, North Dakota is basically Siberia with family restaurants. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:31, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

interesting temperature
"containers at 35 and 5 °C (95 and 41 °F) to maximize the effect"

This 5 °C is roughly (as if rounded) where liquid water is at maximum density. Freezing from the higher temperature would require less expansion. The density change should also have an effect on entropy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.104.88.146 (talk) 08:26, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

What is 'quantity'?
The article several times refers to the 'quantity' of water without specifying how this is defined. The Mpemba/Osborne experiments appear to have used volume as the measure of quantity. The other obvious measure would be mass (usually measured by weighing in standard conditions). Since the density (mass per unit volume) of water varies with temperature, the two measures are not equivalent, as a unit volume of water at a higher temperature will generally have less mass than the same volume at a lower temperature. Quantitatively the difference is probably too small to explain the alleged phenomena, but it seems desirable to avoid the ambiguity.86.132.140.164 (talk) 13:56, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Name
Batholomeo or Bartholomeo ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.238.242.155 (talk) 16:49, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

 * Probably with an r. For more information and external sources such as pp 7 and 11 of an FAO report see an old Wikipedia biography of Mpemba--Rumping (talk) 13:29, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Talk archives
There are achieves of previous talk at Talk:Mpemba effect/Archives/ 1 and Talk:Mpemba effect/Archives/ 2 but I cannot see a link on these pages --Rumping (talk) 13:29, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Added this in manually at the top of the talk page, as the usual template wasn't working with the non-standard archive naming (in the past) Klbrain (talk) 16:39, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

History
How mpemba effect operates Nkungwej (talk) 14:52, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

A personal observation.
When I was a schoolteacher, one of the experiments we did with "special needs" children was to freeze water in a watch glass to make a lens. Demonstrating that it doesn't have to be glass - even ice can make a lens. The teachers'guide suggested that we teachers use near-boiling water for this, because such water contains very few dissolved gases and results in a much "clearer" lens, because in a good quality freezer the water would freeze too quickly for air to dissolve in it.

We were surprised to discover that near-boiling water froze about as quickly as room temperature water. I have no idea whether this is related.

Graph in Article
Isn't there a mistake in the graph? When a substance is changing phase, the temperature of the substances remains constant. In the graph, both the initially hot and initially cold water both show a constant temp, but it's not 0 C!!! Shouldn't that graph be removed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.255.29.67 (talk) 03:36, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * It doesn't rather suggest that their temperature probe hadn't been properly zero'ed, but I think that the graph is still useful because it shows a plateau close to zero. I'd leave it in place until someone can find a better figure. Klbrain (talk) 16:42, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Without a caption stating where the graph is sourced from, who performed the experiment, and/or under what conditions the experiment was performed, this graph is worse than useless, it is potentially misleading. It ought to be removed if it cannot be fully and properly sourced.  Even then, in the future, this graph might be held up as an example of how wrong thinking used to be about the alleged Mpemba effect, which likely does not exist. Robert K S (talk) 20:45, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Robert K S: unsourced, the graph is worse than useless. It should be removed from this article. Slgaiser (talk) 00:04, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

 * I disagree. The graph is a useful illustration of the concept. It doesn't need to be exactly correct to serve as an illustration. The graph is likely a measurement from a personal experiment. See WP:OI: this is policy. Original images created by Wikipedians (as this one is) are not considered original research.
 * There are similar graphs published in refereed journals (figure 7 in this paper, for example). But we couldn't use any published graph due to copyright restrictions, unless the copyright holder released the graphic under an acceptable free license. A similar graph generated by a Wikipedian serves the illustrative purpose just as well. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:57, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Thermal eddy momentum and diffusivity via Turbulent Prandtl number?
This is just an armchair observation, but wouldn't greater temperature differential and thermal gradients that are further from equilibrium be responsible for creating thermal eddies, flows and momentum in either or both fluid turbulence and thermic turbulence? With a greater momentum, we see a flywheel effect of thermal distribution even as temperatures nearer equilibrium. See Turbulent Prandtl number. - 75.173.66.142 (talk) 20:27, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Photos
There are two photos, purporting to lend evidence to this effect. The caption on one states "Mpemba effect experiment: the hot water contained in a thermos, if thrown into the air in a very cold environment, freezes instantly before touching the ground."

This is not a very helpful caption for two reasons: 1) water cannot freeze "instantly," and 2) where's the evidence that it freezes before it hits the ground? Photos or videos of throwing hot water into very cold air show a lot of condensation, and a lot of droplets so it can look very spectacular, especially when backlit. But they never show that the droplets are frozen.

Is there evidence that the water freezes before it hits the ground?

Hermanoere (talk) 18:43, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

The two photos do not demonstrate the Mpemba Effect. As stated by the article, the Mpemba Effect relates to hot water freezing faster than cold water in certain circumstances, none of which is identified as having been thrown up in the air. Also, while the Mpemba Effect is not well understood, the trick of throwing hot water into very cold air so that it quickly vaporizes and then condenses into small droplets and freezes into a cloud of crystals is well understood. There is a good explanation of it at https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2018/01/frozen-bubbles-boiling-water-freezing-explained-bomb-cyclone-bombogenesis-winter-weather-viral-videos-spd/https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2018/01/frozen-bubbles-boiling-water-freezing-explained-bomb-cyclone-bombogenesis-winter-weather-viral-videos-spd/. Other sources across the internet also cite the Mpemba Effect for this demonstration, but this is a case of two similar-seeming effects being attributed to the same cause without reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MeeToney (talk • contribs) 20:18, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 January 2019
Suggested explanations The following explanations have been proposed:

when electrons are moving faster the it is easier to form a optimal atomic orbit shape having longer time to release and gather eletro energy makes the shell thinner sharing is easier The Beautiful Captain Lightning (talk) 21:53, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ‑‑ El Hef  ( Meep? ) 23:05, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 February 2019
Please remove the two pictures of people throwing boiling water into the cold air as they do not seem to relate to the Mpemba Effect.

The Mpemba Effect relates to hot water freezing faster than cold water in certain circumstances, none of which is identified as having been thrown up in the air. Also, while the Mpemba Effect is not well understood, the trick of throwing hot water into very cold air so that it quickly vaporizes and then condenses into small droplets and freezes into a cloud of crystals is well understood. There is a good explanation of it at https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2018/01/frozen-bubbles-boiling-water-freezing-explained-bomb-cyclone-bombogenesis-winter-weather-viral-videos-spd/ https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2018/01/frozen-bubbles-boiling-water-freezing-explained-bomb-cyclone-bombogenesis-winter-weather-viral-videos-spd/. Other sources across the internet also cite the Mpemba Effect for this demonstration, but this is a case of two similar-seeming effects being attributed to the same cause without reason. thanks! MeeToney (talk) 20:36, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:34, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Unique to water?
Is there any information documenting whether this supposed affect has been tested with other liquids? Watching the BBC Facebook video brought me here; they claimed that this is one of the unique properties of water alone. RobP (talk) 14:10, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

 * We know that it works for ice cream. Mpemba was a Tanzanian student who noticed that hot ice cream mix freezes faster than cold ice cream. But of course ice cream contains water. I did a google search to see if anyone had tried it with wax, oil, iron, aluminum, etc. but didn't find anything. If it turns out that the the Mpemba effect works with iron, that would be the death of the hydrogen-oxygen bond theory. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:41, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
 * It has been reported to work for ice cream. Are there any reliable sources stating that it has been measured for ice cream? · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 07:21, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

O:H-O Bond Anomalous Relaxation Resolving Mpemba Paradox (2013)
To consider integrating:

Why Hot Water Freezes Faster Than Cold—Physicists Solve the Mpemba Effect

O:H-O Bond Anomalous Relaxation Resolving Mpemba Paradox

Peter Kaminski (talk) 17:10, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Photos 2
In the Commons there are some uncategorized images related to this effect? These images are: --Estopedist1 (talk) 06:44, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
 * File:Mpemba-3182934 1280.jpg
 * File:Mpemba effect (30653381280).jpg
 * File:Mpemba-3138995 1280.jpg

in addition: File:Sky-3181008 1280.jpg and File:Sky-31810071280.jpg--Estopedist1 (talk) 07:32, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Pretty pictures but no evidence that they are relevant. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 07:16, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Is Mpemba a 'scientist'?
I've edited the page to change Mpemba's appellation from 'scientist' to 'schoolboy'. I hope that's not too controversial! Yes, he was a 'scientist' in the amateur sense, publishing an observation on science; but he was never a professional scientist, did not gain a degree in science, and spent his adult life as a game warden. And it's probably of more relevance and interest to the reader that he was a schoolboy when he made his observation.

Drjamesaustin (talk) 22:50, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Theoretical evidence should be given low priority
The article makes a claim about an experimental observation: hot water freezes faster than cold water (in certain circumstances). However in the literature there is a lot of discussion about the validity of this experimental observation and its poor reproducibility. Most careful experimental work conclude that the effect is due to confounding factors such as (quoting) " (a) evaporation, (b) dissolved gases, (c) mixing by convective currents, and (d) supercooling" Another experimental paper concludes that the effect can entirely be explained by nucleation and supercooling (d). These factors are already mentioned in the article, however against this high quality experimental evidence theoretical evidence for the Mpemba effect is brought. However these theoretical papers atre highly idealized and can not prove in any way that this effect occurs in water (or any liquid at all). Ofcourse they open interesting avenues for realizing the Mpemba-like effects, and speculate about potential mechanisms driving it, but they do not lend credibility to the Mpemba effect actually occuring. I propose moving all theoretical references to their own section. I want to stress that I make no statements about the quality of the theoretical work, just stating that theoretical evidence in general is much weaker than experimental evidence.Nomenenus nescio (talk) 07:59, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

 * I went ahead and split experiments and theory in their own separate sections. Content and wording is left wholly intact. Nomenenus nescio (talk) 08:30, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Urban Myth?
Having looked at some of the references here, I can see little evidence that this effect is reproducible and has any scientific validity rather than being an urban myth.

Are there any clear descriptions of how the effect can be reliably created in water? Belinda479 (talk) 10:35, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * It appears to be sensitive to initial conditions favouring significant supercooling. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 07:07, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * In a word, ‘no’. There are no clear descriptions because it cannot be reliably created.  And while it may be sensitive to initial conditions, it may also be sensitive to so-called hidden variables, or even to supernatural intervention.  My (admittedly limited) reading of the literature strongly suggests the effect is nonexistent, attributable to measurement errors.  Indeed, there seems to be much more research into explaining the so-called effect than in actually demonstrating it.  Slgaiser (talk) 23:54, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Frankly, it seems so absurd on its face that I'm surprised the article treats it with as much deference as it does. If this were true, it would lead to some absurd results. Consider putting equal volumes of 100 degree C water into two beakers, putting the first in one freezer and the second on the kitchen counter, and then waiting for 1 hour. At this point, the water that is in the first beaker will be considerably colder than that in the second. Then put the second beaker in a second freezer -- if this theory were true, then the second beaker would freeze faster. And if, at the same time, you put a third beaker, this one with 100 degree water, into a third freezer, it would freeze faster than the second beaker, and therefore faster than the first -- but this is an absurdity: how could the third beaker, which was placed in its freezer at the same temperature that the first beaker was when it was placed in its freezer an hour before, freeze before the first beaker?  -Waidawut (talk) 03:31, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Fluid dynamics and thermodynamics are not uncommonly counterintuitive. It's a bit burried in the current version of the article, but in my view, the best theoretical explanation is from 2021. To quote from the abstract of that paper, This theory is shown to be consistent with analysis of observations of freezing times measured by Mpemba and Osborne. My point here is that simple thought experiments aren't sufficient to refute experimental findings observing such an effect, as more sophisticated theory is consistent with the Mpemba effect. I do agree, though, that it would be nice to have more experimental evidence? A challenge to any applied physicists out there? Klbrain (talk) 20:01, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Phlogiston
Having read the references, I’m in the camp that the Mpemba effect is bogus, pseudo science. Or call it “Urban Myth”. Or maybe it’s real. Regardless, I added this possible theory mostly as a joke. I understand that this is inconsistent with the guidelines for Wikipedia, and accordingly invite its removal.

That said, I also wrote it hoping that readers might follow the phlogiston link, learn about it, and consider the evolution from today’s credible theories to yesterday’s debunked ones.

At least combustion is real. ;-)

Slgaiser (talk) 23:23, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Not at all amusing; fortunately, someone quickly reversed your unconstructive edits. Klbrain (talk) 14:38, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

I’m glad my misuse was quickly corrected. I will henceforth refrain. Perhaps my good intentions will reap benefits for some few who read this talk page.

Graph in lead
The lead says that "this so-called “effect” is not reproducible" then has a graph reproducing it, showing hot water reaching zero before cold water. Should the graph be there, or is the sentence incorrect? --Lord Belbury (talk) 15:41, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The sentence, using the pejorative "so-called" and scare quotes around "effect" is definitely not neutral, and doesn't reflect what the cited source actually says. I have modified the sentence. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:43, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Diagram as the lead image
Anyone can create a personal web page, self-publish a book, or claim to be an expert. That is why self-published material such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs (as distinguished from newsblogs, above), content farms, Internet forum postings, and social media postings are largely not acceptable as sources — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slgaiser (talk • contribs) 04:07, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

 * Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia policy. WP:OI in particular. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:28, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

The following comments are about the image file File:Mpemba-two-water-probes.svg, currently at the top of the page (but soon to be removed again). The data shown in that image come from the web site picotech.com, a seller of temperature measuring and data logging devices. (See the link under External Sites.). The image clearly fails WP’s verifiability standards (see WP:VERIFY) for two reasons.

First, my previously stated objection to the above image file is that it presents data that do not meet Wikipedia’s standards for verifiability, specifically because those data have only been self-published by a non-expert (see WP:SELFPUB). And while the discussion has revolved around a specific image file, this discussion is fundamentally not about the image itself, but rather is about the inclusion or exclusion of information, in this case Picotech’s self-published temperature measurements. And so WP:SPS logically applies not just to the image in question, but also to any other tabulation, plot, or other representation of Picotech’s data.

I now add a second objection, to be considered separately, that the data under discussion do not meet verifiably standards because they represent original research. The injunction in WP:NOR is explicit: “Wikipedia articles must not contain original research”. I assert that Picotech’s experiment (and results) are self-evidently original research, precluding them entirely. Again, this refers to the research itself, the data, in whatever form, plotted, tabulated, or otherwise. It’s difficult to conceive of any reasonable definition of “original research” which does not include the results of Picotech’s private experiments, “unpublished” as WP uses the term.

Having familiarized myself with WP:OI, I find nothing of relevance, except perhaps “Original images created by a Wikipedian are not considered original research…”, with exceptions. Surely it is not intended that Original Images are some sort of “magic verifiability wrapper” (my term)? Not intended that an Original Image of unverifiable original research somehow becomes verifiable? That an Original Image of unverifiable self-published material becomes verifiable? Or that an Original Image of a screenshot of an unverifiable blog is itself verifiable? I hope I misunderstand.

As an afterthought, I speculate that had the data shown come from a verifiable source (peer reviewed, or self-published by an expert), that there would be some discussion of why the samples seem to freeze at three degrees instead of at zero, and why there is an odd step in each sample’s temperature around six degrees, and why neither sample appears to have supercooled. And would better describe the experimental setup, and would say something about repeatability. Those hallmarks will likely be present in most [modern] reliable, verifiable sources. Slgaiser (talk) 18:49, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

 * To answer your objections:

 * The image meets standards of verifiability under WP:OI because anyone can replicate the experiment and, if the conditions are correct, obtain a similar graph.

 * The fact that the image was created by a seller of temperature probes is irrelevant. It would not be in their interest to falsify information. This is clearly the result of an experiment demonstrating their probes. So what? The graphic itself is not an attempt to advertise or sell anything. An objection based on the identity of the creator is invalid on its face.

 * Data published by non-experts, as a result of experiment, is acceptable under WP:OI, which clearly states "Original images created by a Wikipedian are not considered original research, so long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments." This diagram does not illustrate or introduce an unpublished idea or argument. It illustrates a previously published idea/argument. That is acceptable.

 * You even acknowledge yourself that the graph wasn't made available by some noob fooling around at home, but by a maker of temperature probes, who clearly must know something about measuring temperature, and therefore must have some expertise. You have no knowledge about the credentials behind the designer of the probes or the person who conducted the experiment. But that doesn't matter, according to WP:OI.

 * The image may simply be the result of a student experiment. So what? A result is a result. The article clearly states that it is not easy to reproduce. If an example can be found, released under an acceptable free license, illustrating the result, then it serves as a good illustration for this article.

 * You can find similar graphs in scholarly journals on Google Scholar. Figure 7 in this article is one example. We cannot use it though, because of copyright. The fact that such images exist doesn't mean we must use them instead. We can't without a release from the copyright holder. Therefore, we use images generated by non-experts instead.

 * That there are anomalies in the graph simply illustrate possible problems with the experimental setup. I have no doubt that this graph is the result of an actual, but flawed, experiment. And the article discusses the possibility that all these Mpemba effect experiments are flawed. That is not a reason to remove the image.

 * Instead of removing it, the caption should be improved. I have added a caption, and invite you to improve on it. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:07, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Suggested explanations
Thermal conductivity
 * 1) Criticism of §1: ME also arises (sometimes) outdoors, on block or pot of ice. On a dry, clean cooler surface, i.e. ice thickness ~0, and not flat bottom of the cup, bottom conductance is usually poor. (According to )
 * 2) Compelling proposal, if you read more then abstract. Until reviewed by others added as "Suggested explanation".

Attention seeking unscience
The topic is poorly defined. What do you mean «in some circumstances it can happen»? Until the circumstances are properly described, theres no substance to be dicussed. The lack of rigorous description of the experiment that produces this observation it is meaningless to say «all other factors constant».

and this is just the very first step of desribing what would be descussed. Then come the reference to aristotle and others, while theres still nothing clarified. at best this would be a fun paradox for teaching physics, if it were described to any level. But it isnt. In its current form its pseudoscience that is not even wrong, just waste of time.

to be clear, this isnt the fault of the schoolboy who made the first observation. But neither is his obaervation amount to a “physics effect”, instead it is an effect in the sensationalist journalism reporting sense. the first perspn who reported it should have made a better job, but that is also not to find a fault with the reporter. Reporters are not expected to only make scientifically meaningful statements.

this shifts the burden to the next in line, which is wikipedia: this article should either give a scientifically rigorous description of the effect, that is refer to a publication where these details are included, or begin the lede with a clear statement that no such experiment is to be found and therefore refer the topic to the heresay, beer science, word-play category which may say that there is a hitherto unexplayed phenomena but, fails to describe the phenomena in a way that would be the prerequisite of any methodological inquiry into its explanation. 2A02:2121:62B:5A3C:94B8:62C4:138E:62A4 (talk) 10:43, 26 May 2024 (UTC).

Aristotle said
A has said a great many things on many topics, but ref.3. gives no account as to what relevant statement A has made and how that relates to the alleged observation. This reference is of as much use as another reference to what Puss in Boots has said would have been.2A02:2121:62B:5A3C:94B8:62C4:138E:62A4 (talk) 10:53, 26 May 2024 (UTC).

title: Talk:Mpemba effect


text:
User:Subsume

That'll be fine.

title: User:Subsume


text:
Talk:Order of the Eastern Star

The Order of the Eastern Star and Eastern Star topics should be combined.
 * Done. --Gary D 04:40, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Anonymous ranting deleted here

History
What about adding some history into this article.. Like when this organization developed, how, why and by who. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.232.1.50 (talk) 03:44, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Excellent point, 74 -- I didn't realize that I had only put this info in the Morris/Macoy articles.--SarekOfVulcan 12:10, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

There is, unfortunately, not nearly enough biographical information available on Rob Morris, especially his early years. In the 1920s, there were two books published on the History of the Order. Both have the title "History of the Order of the Eastern Star". One is by Willis D. Engle and is available as a reprint. A much more extensive version was written by Jean M'kee Kenaston and this book apparently contained a biography of Morris. However, this book is long out of print and very hard to find. Little is known about Morris' college years (even where he went to school seems unknown--it is usually stated that he received a very good education) or with whom he associated and his poetic and literary influences. This might shed valuable light on his inspirations for the Order. There is a Rob Morris Memorial in Kentucky, which might have more information.

There is some debate about whether Morris borrowed some portion of the rituals and/or symbolism from the Adoptive Lodges existing in Europe. Morris apparently did give conflicting statements about this rather touchy subject. In the early years, he seemed to hint at some borrowing, but later he claimed it was entirely his invention. The web sites of Grand Chapters in the US and the General Grand Chapter support the idea of Morris being the sole creator, with later help in organizing from Macoy. However, Grand Chapter sites in jurisdictions not under the General Grand Chapter, notably Australia and Germany, support the idea of his trying to create an American version of the Adoptive Rites. Probably, this question will not be resolved. The French Adoptive Lodges were absorbed into the Grand Lodge Feminine de France and they have since stopped working the old rites, which would have been the only method of comparison.Guy of Auvergne 06:28, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Comments on symbolism
A common misconception is that the star is pointed down. It isn't. The star is a horizontal figure. It denotes the layout of the Chapter Room, in which the white ray is pointed to the West. Of course, when placed on a written page, we imply a vertical orientation.

The star is also said to be representative of the movements of Venus across the sky when it changes from the evening to the morning star and back again. In fact, according to www.symbols.com, the word "Eastern Star" is a reference to Venus in it's morning star phase. Therefore, in addition to its Christian connotations, "Eastern Star" alludes to a symbolism more recognizeable to ancient peoples.

Something in the OES Symbol that has always passed without comment by non-members is the word inscribed in the inner area. As a member, I can't divulge its meaning, which is rather trite anyway. However, among members, it is called a "cabalistic" word. Really, that just means an anagram for the trite phrase I can't repeat. However, one day, I decided to take "cabalistic" literally and wondered what would happen if I used the cabalistic system of gematria to assign a numeric value and find out which Hebrew words corresponded. Since Hebrew has no actual "F", it had a value of zero and the whole word came to a value of 41. There are about twelve words in Hebrew which have that numeric value. However, one of them is the Hebrew word for "fecundity", which is a synonym for fertility. Now Venus was the goddess of love and fertility....maybe I'm going too far with this. Interesting nonetheless. You can go to http://www.mysticalinternet.com/gematria/lookup.php?system=hebrew&word, where they have a Gematria calculator and see if you get the same result.

I only added this particular note because of the numerous sites publishing defamatory remarks about the Order being unfit for Christians. In all of OES ritual, there is very little that would support their contentions. Of course, if one is inclined toward a fundamentalist type of Christian faith, by all means, the Order is not for them. They are not going to be tolerant of anything not supporting their narrow views, including other forms of Christianity or social organizations like OES, which have a spiritual aspect, but are not specifically Christian enough for them.

So here, I have given the one part of OES symbolism which I, as a member, find even slightly deviates from it's Judeo-Christian heritage. And even I can't make it that compelling.

By the way, none of my comments here are endorsed by the Order of the Eastern Star.Guy of Auvergne 03:22, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Heroines
I would like to see specific information on the roles of the heroines (I mean the roles--not the actual biblical women). Are they there to sit there and look pretty and then show up to do the Carnation Ritual at a member's funeral, or do they serve some other purpose?

"Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.229.225.8 (talk • contribs)"

Each Star point has a lecture during Initiation in which they teach the lesson that can be drawn from the Biblical story. I don't know that that's terribly encyclopedic, though...--SarekOfVulcan 16:42, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Removal of "Jack Chick" Alleged Controversy Section
I've decided to remove the section because quite frankly I think that there is a difference between noting a genuine controversy surrounding a subject in an article and adding information to an article simply because someone somewhere happens to believe that it's true. My understanding of Wikipedia policy, is that the encyclopedia is not intended to represent each and every possible perspective or opinion on any given subject, no matter how outlandish or unsupported it may be, but rather should consist of information that is drawn from recognised and accepted secondary sources of mainstream information. It is my opinion that citing Jack Chick publications does not represent such a source. Jack Chick also espouses the belief that the United Nations and the Roman Catholic Church are also both "satanic" organizations, however I have a difficult time believing that editors of the Wikipedia article pertaining to either one of those subjects, would willingly accept as valid a section pointing out that fact backed up by a quote from one of Mr. Chick's publications. Deconstructhis 23:35, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not nessecarily endorsing his viewpoint, just not censoring it either. Jack Chick is by no means alone in his belief, and there is no good reason why this shouldn't be noted. --RucasHost 10:04, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The good reason this shouldn't be noted/included is the that the so-called controversy content is based on unauthoritative, non-credible, and "extremist" sources (see WP:RS). Therefore, removing it has nothing to do with censoring.BC 16:55, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

 * Hello Rucashost, my problem here is the appropriateness of the inclusion of this alleged controversy in this particular article. As I mentioned above, as I understand Wikipedia policy, it's not the intention of the encyclopedia to include *all* possible positions on a given subject, no matter how marginalized those ideas are in literally every article related to a subject, in fact my reading of policy indicates the opposite:

[...]

"Articles should be sourced to works written by reliable third parties, or found in reliable publications with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Sources should be appropriate to the claims made: exceptional claims require exceptional sources. All articles must adhere to Wikipedia's neutrality policy, fairly representing all majority and significant-minority viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in rough proportion to the prominence of each view. Tiny-minority views and fringe theories need not be included, except in articles devoted to them."

[...]

"Publications with a poor reputation for fact-checking or with no editorial oversight should only be used in articles about the authors or publishers themselves. Articles about such sources should not repeat any contentious claims the author or publisher has made about third parties, unless those claims are also made in reliable sources."WP:RS

In my opinion, your material, if it's supported by a reliable source, belongs in an article specifically dealing with either the relationship between Freemasonry and Christianity in general, or perhaps in an article dealing with masonic conspiracy theories; not in a general article concerning what's basically a service organization for middle-aged folks. If I'm understanding your position correctly, by extension, what you're saying is that if even a small number of conspiracy theorists put forward a notion that George W. Bush is actually an entity from another planet disguising himself as a human being, that somehow there is an onus on Wikipedia to include a mention of that "position" in the primary biographical article for the current U.S. president. That information may be appropriate, if properly sourced, in an article dealing with conspiracy theories surrounding Bush, but I reject the idea that it's appropriate in his primary biographical entry, as I think most responsible editors would.Deconstructhis 17:51, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Rucashost, it might be appropriate for you to review the "Five Pillars" of what Wikipedia is, in particular #1, as well as what Wikipedia is not Deconstructhis 18:22, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I would say that this organization may have satanic ties because of the symbol that they use to represent their organization. Any slight research into this would show that this is the satanic star that is used by satanists the world over. I am not saying that this is enough proof alone just that it may be out there to find.--70.88.156.77 (talk) 23:55, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Re Ongoing Dispute Regarding Satanic Conspiracy Theory
After quickly reviewing Rucashost's past editing practices, I'm of the opinion that in all probability s/he holds a sincere personal belief in what they're posting, however they seem unwilling or unable to justify why they believe that the material is relevent in this particular article. I can see how the information is appropriate content (if properly sourced) in the context of several different conspiracy theory articles and perhaps even in articles pertaining directly to the sources they're citing, Jack Chick or Ed Decker, but I'm against having it this article for the reasons I mentioned earlier. Personally, I have no intention of reverting this article any more, for the time being at least, I've stated my case as clearly as I can.Deconstructhis 19:34, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

This is what this page is all about: http://images.google.com/images?um=1&hl=en&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=baphomet&spell=1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.253.168.237 (talk) 00:46, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * BZZZZZT! But thank you for playing.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:11, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

The entire notion of the "Inverted" star representing "Evil" is a piece of 19th C. revisionism- another thing that Levi has to answer for....Saxophobia (talk) 22:32, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

 * The "inverted star" does not even appear in Lévi's drawing of the Baphomet (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baphomet#/media/File%3ABaphomet.png) where, as you see, the pentagram is depicted in the upright position.
 * Nuttyskin (talk) 14:51, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Rosa Parks
I just called Mizpah Grand Chapter of Alabama, and the lady who answered the phone didn't have the records available to determine whether Parks was a member of Alonzo Mitchell Chapter 636. So, this is still up in the air: I haven't yet seen a source that didn't link back to the Meridian Chapter claim. --uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 19:06, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

The role of the Sentinel in succession, and more info about the Associate Patron
In some chapters, the Sentinel is an elected position always held by a man, and he advances to the position of Associate Patron the following term. This is also true of the Right Worthy Grand Sentinel in General Grand Chapter, as well as the Grand Sentinel in most Grand Chapters. This is a minor detail, but I thought it might be worth adding. However, I can't figure out how to add it without being totally disruptive.

Also, it might be worth mentioning that the Associate Patron didn't exist as an office until 1932 (or thereabouts). Therefore, the Associate Patrons participation in the various rituals is optional in most jurisdictions. But that is extremely minor and might not be worth mentioning.

Cpk1971 (talk) 08:20, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * For the first addition, we'd need a reliable source citing it: there's already enough uncited material in that section. :-( For the second, I definitely want to see cites -- that's a lot more encyclopedic than the first one, imho.--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 17:51, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Different jurisdictions
The article, as written, mostly focuses around GGC OES. PHA and NY would presumably object to that, so anybody have any suggestions on how to make it more-inclusive?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:51, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Mississippi and the Little Red School House
Why is there no mention of the Eureka Masonic College in Mississippi? Bravo601 (talk) 14:24, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * No particular reason, as far as I know. It's treated in more detail at the Rob Morris article.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:25, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Would it be unacceptable for me to add this info at a later date? When I actually have time. Bravo601 (talk) 14:30, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't be a problem, generally speaking. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:32, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Order of the Eastern Star. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120329134100/http://www.bclocalnews.com/lifestyles/67051602.html to http://www.bclocalnews.com/lifestyles/67051602.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 12:51, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Order of the Eastern Star. 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/20090505234919/http://www.education.gov.yk.ca/advanceded/sfa/scholarships/elizabeth_bentley.html to http://www.education.gov.yk.ca/advanceded/sfa/scholarships/elizabeth_bentley.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070311025055/http://www.akpub.com/akttt/stmatts/choirwindow.htm to http://www.akpub.com/akttt/stmatts/choirwindow.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060914145359/http://www6.semo.edu/universitypress/bigmuddy/NF/Laura_Ingalls_Wilder.htm to http://www6.semo.edu/universitypress/bigmuddy/NF/Laura_Ingalls_Wilder.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130824152628/http://www.shorefrontlegacy.org/Shorefront/Home.html to http://www.shorefrontlegacy.org/Shorefront/Home.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) 19:45, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

FATAL ?
Though "the meaning of the letters FATAL surrounding the center pentagon in the emblem is only revealed to members of the Order, but has been readily available on the internet for some time;" then why isn't it included here? 2600:8800:395:B000:1546:F99E:962:2C39 (talk) 19:13, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

 * I have added and sourced the meaning, Svedishf1shy (talk) 17:20, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, why isn't that information included in the article? I'll save you the bother: Fairest Among Thousands Altogether Lovely. Nuttyskin (talk) 16:39, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I had added it, then it was removed because the source I had provided did not directly mention the emblem, only the statement. If you can find a better source feel free to contribute to the article. Otherwise, I'd suggest you look at the article history before making an accusatory comment. Svedishf1shy (talk) 12:37, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Order of the Eastern Star


text: User talk:24.161.78.209

title: User talk:24.161.78.209