text:
Nunn–Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction

As the collapse of the Soviet Union appeared imminent, the United States and their NATO allies grew concerned of the risk of nuclear weapons held in the Soviet republics falling into enemy hands. The Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) program was initiated by the Nunn–Lugar Act (really the Soviet Nuclear Threat Reduction Act of 1991), which was authored and cosponsored by Sens. Sam Nunn (D-GA) and Richard Lugar (R-IN). The purpose of the CTR Program was originally "to secure and dismantle weapons of mass destruction and their associated infrastructure in former Soviet Union states." As the peace dividend grew old, an alternative 2009 explanation of the program was "to secure and dismantle weapons of mass destruction in states of the former Soviet Union and beyond". The CTR program funds have been disbursed since 1997 by the Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA).

The first 15 years
CTR provided funding and expertise for states in the former Soviet Union (including Russia, Ukraine, Georgia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Uzbekistan, and Kazakhstan) to decommission nuclear, biological, and chemical weapon stockpiles,  as agreed by the Soviet Union under disarmament treaties such as SALT I. This funding totaled $400 million a year for a total of four years. This $400 million was given to CTR-related defense programs. The Departments of Defense (DOD), Energy (DOE), state, and commerce were subject to distribute the funding. After the nuclear warheads were removed from their delivery vehicles by the post-Soviet successor militaries, Nunn-Lugar assistance provided equipment and supplies to destroy the missiles on which the warheads had been mounted, as well as the silos which had contained the missiles. The warheads themselves were then shipped to and destroyed in Russia, with the highly enriched uranium contained within made into commercial reactor fuel, which was purchased by the United States under a separate program. In recent years, the CTR program has expanded its mission from securing WMDs at the root source to protecting against WMD "on the move", by enhancing land and maritime border security in the former Soviet Union.

According to the CTR website in 2007, CTR had four key objectives:
 * Dismantle former Soviet Union (FSU)'s weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and associated infrastructure
 * Consolidate and secure FSU WMD and related technology and materials
 * Increase transparency and encourage higher standards of conduct
 * Support defense and military cooperation with the objective of preventing proliferation

These objectives were compartmentalized into three program areas which include:
 * Destruction and dismantlement
 * Safety, security and non-proliferation
 * Demilitarization and defense conversion

These areas were then pursued and achieved through a variety of programs. Briefly, these include:
 * The Cooperative Biological Engagement Program (CBEP; formerly the Biological Threat Reduction Program)
 * Chemical Weapons Elimination Program
 * Nuclear Weapons Storage Security Program (NWSS)
 * Strategic Offensive Arms Elimination Program (SOAE)
 * Weapons of Mass Destruction-Proliferation Prevention Initiative (WMD-PPI)

The CTR program is authorized by Title 22 of the United States Code, chapter 68a.

The FY 2007 CTR Annual Report to Congress provides a status update on the program as a whole and individual initiatives. It also details future planned endeavors in each area.

The Nunn-Lugar Act was a major contributor to de-escalation of nuclear weapon arsenals. This program was used for "the transportation, storage, safeguarding and destruction of nuclear and other weapons in the Soviet Union… and to assist in the prevention of weapons proliferation". One contribution by the Nunn-Lugar program has been the "delivery of equipment to accelerate the dismantlement of strategic nuclear delivery vehicles" to the Soviet Union. This program made important contributions in the disarmament of nuclear warheads in many counties. The Nunn-Lugar program eliminated former strategic weapons outside of Russia. This was most evident in the removal of these weapons in Ukraine, after the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances. There were many countries that had Soviet nuclear weapons. Two others included Belarus and Kazakhstan. Nunn-Lugar helped Russia to move the nuclear arsenals in these countries back to Russia or to dismember these weapons in these countries. The US sent "nearly 700 emergency response items to help guarantee safe and secure transportation of nuclear weapons" to Belarus for the aid of the elimination of nuclear weapons in this country. The Nunn-Lugar Act played a major role in a huge decrease in the quantity of nuclear weapons that had been stockpiled during the nuclear escalation period.

Another important contribution was seen when the US sent storage containers to Russia to store fissionable material under Russian control. The US provided "10,000 fissile material storage containers by the end of 1995 and a total of nearly 33,000 containers by early 1997". These containers aided in Russia's ability to store nuclear material from dismantled warheads. Another contribution from the US to Russia was "75 million dollars to help Russia build a new fissile material storage facility at Chelyabinsk for plutonium "pits" from dismantled warheads". The Nuclear Threat Reduction program was not just used to remove everything fissionable from Russia; it also included ideas for safe storage and transportation of fissionable material in Russia built up during the Cold War.

20th century outcome
Ukraine and Kazakhstan are nuclear weapons free because of this program. Under CTR, the U.S. and recipient states have made considerable advancements in global security against the threat of WMD. By the year 1997 all strategic Soviet nuclear weapons were removed from Belarus, Kazakhstan, and Ukraine marking an important landmark in the CTR initiative.

Weapons deactivated and destroyed under this program include:
 * 537 ICBMs
 * 459 ICBM silos
 * 11 ICBM mobile missile launchers
 * 128 bombers
 * 708 nuclear air-to-surface missiles
 * 408 submarine missile launchers
 * 496 submarine-launched missiles
 * 27 nuclear submarines
 * 194 nuclear test tunnels

Other milestone results include:
 * 260 tons of fissile material received security upgrades
 * 60 nuclear warhead storage sites received security upgrades
 * 35 percent of Russian chemical weapons received security upgrades
 * 49 former biological weapons facilities were converted to joint U.S.–Russian research under what were known as the Biological Threat Reduction Integrating Contracts
 * 4 biological weapons sites received security improvements
 * 58,000 former weapons scientists employed in peaceful work through International Science and Technology Centers (ISTC, of which the U.S. is the leading sponsor)
 * 750 projects involving 14,000 former weapons scientists and created some 580 new peaceful high-tech jobs; The International Proliferation Prevention Program has funded

One Nunn–Lugar site, Pavlograd, Ukraine, dedicated itself beginning in June 2004 to the decommissioning of nuclear missiles without burning their solid rocket fuel, thus preventing dioxins from threatening the local environment and human population. The Pavlograd missile factory PMZ has been converted to an advanced astronautics "Space Clipper" program.

Expansion under Bush
Other countries are finding ways to produce, test, and acquire weapons of mass destruction. In an attempt to regulate WMD globally, the Nunn–Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction has stepped outside of the former Soviet Union states. 2003 marked an important year for CTR expansion as the initiative was accepted by congress allowing the spread to countries not included within the prior Soviet Union. The Nunn-Lugar Expansion Act under the 108th congress granted up to $50 million to be used outside the former Soviet Union which focused primarily on Albania, North Korea, Iraq, and Libya.

Over time Nunn-Lugar has received many supporters and also many critics. Continuation and expansion has been up for debate since its initial formation in 1991. Proponents argue that the CTR does more good than harm which has led to funding expansion. This expansion of the program is displayed in the 1997 Defense Authorization Act whose purposed served in securing chemical and biological weapon materials. In contrast, opponents say that the US funding is going to other Russian programs. Going into the 21st century, efforts now have an expanded focus including a more generalized nuclear nonproliferation motive.

Libya
In 2003 Libya decided upon giving up on their nuclear weapons program. Funding from Nunn-Lugar allowed for secure transportation of nuclear materials from Libya to the United States.

Albania
Albania had possession of 16 tons of chemical weapons which were disclosed and disposed of through the Nunn-Lugar program. Nunn-Lugar funds in the year 2004, under the Bush presidency, were provided to eliminate all chemical weapons held within Albania which amounted to roughly $38.5 million. After just 3 years Albania no longer possessed chemical weapons of mass destruction.

Pakistan
After the 9/11 terrorist attacks, knowledge regarding Pakistani nuclear weaponry and nuclear scientists was unclear making it a strong candidate from American political leaders for Nunn-Lugar. Border crossing between Pakistan and Afghanistan militants made U.S. officials uneasy, this alongside the allegations of nuclear arms smuggling caused further talk of Nunn-Lugar program expansion in 2011. Senator Richard Lugar has expressed his concern regarding Pakistani nuclear weapons of mass destruction along with concerns over potential pathogenic and infectious disease security. Lugar also stated that if an outbreak occurs, if Pakistan accepts transparency with the CTR program, the U.S. will be able to provide aid and establish systems to combat an outbreak.

Expansion under Obama
Subsequent programs have built on the CTR, including the Proliferation Security Initiative, initially launched by President Bush in cooperation with Poland in 2003, and built on by multilateral efforts and then by President Obama.

In 2008 the DTRA awarded Black & Veatch the first of its Biological Threat Reduction Integrating Contracts (BTRIC). The five-year IDIQ contract has a collective ceiling of $4 billion among the five selected contractors. DTRA awarded BV the first BTRIC in Ukraine in 2008, which "is a vital part" of the CTR, entitled Biological Threat Reduction (BTR). The Implementing (Executive) Agents were three in number: the Ukraine Ministry of Health, Ukraine Academy of Agrarian Sciences and Ukraine State Committee for Veterinary Medicine.

In July 2008 President Medvedev signed the ratification law to cooperate in "the elimination of reduced strategic offensive weapons, improving the safety of storing and transporting nuclear weapons, improving the physical protection of nuclear materials and the destruction of chemical weapons," retroactive to the signature of the protocol on 16 June 2006 for a term of seven years.

In May 2009, Russia announced the opening of a major facility to decommission its chemical weapons reserves. Built near vast reserves of ex-Soviet weaponry at Shchuchye, Kurgan Oblast, in the Ural Mountains, the site is expected to destroy some 5,500 tons of chemical agents, including Sarin and VX. About one-third of the funding to build the plant, roughly $1 billion, was provided by CTR.

Although the budget for the CTR program has been cut every year since the Obama administration began, the US still faces many issues when it comes to agreements with Russia in nuclear arms reduction. President Obama had his own ideas for nuclear threat reduction. He and Hillary Clinton tried to reset nuclear relations with Russia. This plan included a plan to further reduce U.S. and Russian nuclear arsenals, which would further reduce the number of nuclear weapons in the world today. This plan was the result of the impending expiration of the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START I). START was set to expire in December 2009.

In October 2012 the second Putin administration declared that Russia would not extend the CTR agreement without changes in the text.

On 14 June 2013 the US and Russia signed a new bilateral framework on cooperative threat reduction intended to supersede the first CTR. The new agreement was intended to reinforce the longstanding partnership on nonproliferation between these two nations and their activities in Russia and the Former Soviet Republics (FSR). "This new framework builds upon the success of the 1992 Agreement between the United States of America and the Russian Federation Concerning the Safe and Secure Transportation, Storage and Destruction of Weapons and the Prevention of Weapons Proliferation, commonly known as the Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction Umbrella Agreement that expires today. This new bilateral framework authorizes the United States and the Russian Federation to work in several areas of nonproliferation collaboration, including protecting, controlling, and accounting for nuclear materials." Under the new framework, Russia assumed the costs and the completion without further US assistance of two areas of bilateral CTR cooperation previously covered by the CTR framework: ballistic missile elimination and chemical weapons destruction.

In Obama's second term, work on nuclear threat reduction was said to be more bleak because of the Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation. Arms Control Today opined that "the crisis in Ukraine probably has ruined prospects for another formal Russian-U.S. arms control agreement during the Obama administration's second term." As far as reducing nuclear weapons in other countries, besides Ukraine, there is more of a chance of an agreement. This idea is explained in "countering nuclear weapons proliferation to states and to nonstate actors, the prospects are somewhat better, given mutual Russian and U.S. concerns in that area". There are still many agreements that have been proposed that can be passed between the US and Russia as far as nuclear weapons and the control and elimination of them are concerned. As time progresses, the threat of nuclear weapons and the money needed to spend on the elimination of them diminishes. The CTR program has faced many budget cuts since its beginning in 1986 because the program was, as opined by one observer, "created to deal with yesterday's strategic weapons and yesterday's threats have largely diminished".

In January 2015 Russian Federation representatives told their US counterparts that Russia would no longer accept US assistance in securing stored weapons-grade nuclear material but said they would continue the program on their own. Joint security work at numerous Russian sites and facilities was halted on 1 January 2015.

In December 2014, the program awarded a $4 million contract to MRIGlobal to "configure, equip, deploy and staff two quick response mobile laboratory systems (MLS) to support the ongoing Ebola outbreak in West Africa." The labs were deployed to Sierra Leone.

Future plans
In 2018, David Franz and Libby Turpen co-chaired the National Academy of Sciences Committee on International Security and Arms Control to discuss the next ten years regarding the CTR program. The committee found that the Cooperative, or "C", in CTR was found to be central in reducing threats through transparency and action further strengthening world relations while mitigating dangers to the U.S. Sustainable partnerships between new and existing countries under the CTR is fundamental to the threat reduction program. The committee found the CTR program in 2018 still to be "foundational" in U.S. safety from WMD, even 30 years after the birth of the program.

title: Nunn–Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction


text:
The Swingers

The Swingers were a New Zealand rock band who were together from 1979 to 1982 and whose biggest single was the song "Counting the Beat".

Background
Formed out of the remnants of the Suburban Reptiles, the founding members were Phil Judd (guitar, vocals), Wayne Stevens (a.k.a. Bones Hillman) (bass), and Mark Hough (a.k.a. Buster Stiggs) (drums). Formed in 1979, the band released the single "One Good Reason", which was a top 20 hit in New Zealand. They also appeared on the Ripper Records sampler AK79 and established a large live following after a residency at Auckland's Liberty Stage club.

In 1980 the band moved to Australia and signed to Mushroom Records for that country, although their New Zealand releases remained on Ripper.

Success
After some band dissension, Ian Gilroy of the Crocodiles replaced Hough on drums. The band released the single "Counting the Beat", which became a No. 1 hit in Australia and New Zealand. A second single released in 1981, "It Ain't What You Dance, It's the Way That You Dance It" (which had the outro repeat line "oh yeah, oh yeah, oh yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah"), was also a Top 5 hit in New Zealand but only a minor hit in Australia (reaching #43). An album, Practical Jokers, produced by David Tickle, was released. The band also performed songs in the film Starstruck.

Breakup
The band underwent a couple more line-up changes, including the addition of Pop Mechanix and Coconut Rough vocalist Andrew Snoid, before it split up in March 1982. Phil Judd went on to pursue a solo career.

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

title: The Swingers


text:
South Seas Communist Party

The South Seas Communist Party (SSCP), also known as the Nanyang Communist Party, was a communist party in Southeast Asia established in 1925 when the Chinese Communist Party dissolved its overseas branches in Nanyang to make way for the creation of local communist parties. The SSCP succeeded earlier efforts by the Indonesian communist Tan Malaka to establish communist parties in the region.

The SSCP was headquartered in Singapore. The SSCP disbanded in 1930, and national communist parties were formed, such as the Communist Party of Indochina (led by Ho Chi Minh), Malayan Communist Party and Communist Party of Siam.

South Seas Communist Party in Burma
A minor branch of the South Seas Communist Party was formed in Burma. The group was formed by Wu Wei Sai (alias Wu Ching Sin), who had arrived to Rangoon in May 1929. Along with his wife he conducted propaganda activities in the Rangoon Chinatown. A small group of followers was formed, but largely the establishment of a Chinese communist movement in Burma failed as the Chinese community in Burma was dominated by middle-class elements. Rangoon had relatively few Chinese labourers. Wu Wei Sai left Burma in 1930. The group that remained, the Provisional Committee, Special Division, Burma of the South Seas Communist Party, had only a handful members. Some were deported to China by the British authorities.

title: South Seas Communist Party


text:
User:Sam nead

I am mostly interested in cleaning up a few articles in mathematics. My expertise is in geometric_topology. Please do let me know of any errors I've made. Thank you.

title: User:Sam nead


text:
Talk:Moonbat

Initial comment
Cute for the Parallell Dictionary of Neologisms

Sites that examplify "Moonbat"
I took them off because its POV.

 * good! Wjbean 14:42, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Definition of 'Moonbat'
Why was Eric Margolis - a moderate conservative - described as a moonbat in some warblogs? Does "moonbat" now mean "non-Islamophobe?" - GCarty 14:33, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm finding that the definition, by usage, is rather fluid. Lately the term seems to apply to anyone who does not readily agree with the current White House or to anyone who disagrees with or criticizes G.W. Bush. Wjbean 00:47, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

A northern Irish seperatist with a idiosyncratic approach to getting things done. E.g. That Brian Guiney lad is a right moonbat!

Is this really worthy of an article?
A praze used by some right-wing bloggers. Is this really worthy of an encycopedia entry. Non-notable me thinks.--JK the unwise 13:19, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I came to wikipedia specifically to get some insight into this term. I'm glad the page is here. -- G.G.Salt, 10 Aug 2005
 * Yes, so did I. I'm glad there was an article explaining what it is. Joffeloff 00:53, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

 * I'm glad it's here too, however I think there are flaws and cleverly couched POV bias in the way the definition is worded. For example, the very first sentence inaccurately describes Noam Chomsky as a "far left" moonbat.  Chomsky certainly is liberal or left leaning in his views, but it's very easy to argue he is not "far left" or a "moonbat" as described here. "Far left" would be an anarchist, or Marxist Communist, not an established MIT academic who has written numerous thoroughly researched publications on linguistics and the Middle East. One gets the familiar feeling that persons with biased POV leanings wrote this definition-and made a point of taking an underhanded swipe at Chomsky here.  For that matter the entire definition as laid out here has a POV conservative lean to it, which significantly weakens it's encyclopedic integrity.   Notice the last sentence in the first paragraph makes a meagre half-hearted attempt at editorial balance by saying a "moonbat" could mean somebody "anywhere on the political spectrum", then mentions the rather obscure Pat Buchanan-and of course deliberately leaves out far more nutty and famous neo-con moonbats such as Ann Coulter, or Michelle Malkin.  If there ever was a right wing/conservative moonbat who is perfect for this term, if you asked 10 people on the street in the USA Coulter would certainly take the cake...not Buchanan.  Of course, no mention of Coulter here though.  Definitely lots of need to thoroughly re-write this entire definition, methinks.  Zamboni driver 19:17, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

 * I think to say that Chomsky is "liberal or left leaning in his views" is more than a bit of an understatement. Chomsky "describes himself as a libertarian socialist who sympathizes with anarcho-syndicalism" (See Chomsky's Wiki entry for citation)

 * Are you implying that Buchanan is more obscure than Chomsky? I never even heard of Chomsky until I read about him on DU. As a "neo-con" myself, I would classify Buchanan as a moonbat, but not Coulter. She is simply "swiftboating" the left, ie., exposing the truth. Crockspot 18:46, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Of course Coulter is not a moonbat. If you need a label other than the more accurate five letter word that starts with a "B" and is preceded by the word Nazi, she is a rightwingnut. And that is an understatement. And while we are on the topic of pejorative labeling of others, shouldn't your handle more accurately be "Crackpot" not Crockspot?Garth of the Forest (talk) 00:03, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm with G.G.Salt. I was recently introduced to George Monbiat's positions through The Age of Consent and I found this entry informative after reading the main George Monbiat entry in Wikipedia. Mundek 01:30, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

The word is showing up all over the place. I've seen it in blogs, forums, and political cartoons where participants or targets, in the case of cartoons, have been called Moonbat. I thought the word was simply an insult for any left leaner. Without this article I would not have known Monbiat was the initial target or that a Libertarian publication had coined the term. Wjbean 14:41, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

"A praze used by some right-wing bloggers. Is this really worthy of an encycopedia entry. Non-notable me thinks.-"

I'm surprised how few people seem to understand what an encyclopedia is - if it is referenced elsewhere, and not axiomatic and only internally understood, it is worthy of an entry in both a dictionary and an encyclopedia, especially one that seems to want to be an all inclusive, non-specific encyclopedia such as this. Certainly it should be presented without a POV when presented, but certainly NOT feeling it worthy of inclusion is a POV as well.

I found it helpful when I was trying to understand where it came from. I would like to see it kept. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tuibguy (talk • contribs) 16:57, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

The term has nothing to do with Monbiot. If you think otherwise, please provide references to back up your claims. The person who coined the term, Perry de Havilland, as a descriptor of those holding the absurd extreme of whatever ism they belong to (thus it does not merely apply to the loony left, but also to absolutist anarcho-capitalist libertarians, similarly nutty conservatives, etc), did so long before he had even heard of Monbiot, or that Monbiot was anybody worth coining a term about. Adriana Cronyn defines it as someone who sacrifices sanity for the sake of consistency. See: http://www.samizdata.net/blog/glossary_archives/2002/09/barking_moonbat.html 71.95.151.21 (talk) 17:44, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Unclear definition
"Someone who sacrifices sanity for the sake of consistency."

It looks like you can call anyone making a logically consistent argument moonbat; because when sanity is not defined by the ability of logical reasoning it is in the eye of the beholder.R.H. 15:22, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Prehaps the insainity lies in accepting the outcome of ones argument no matter how zany rather then rejecting ones premesis. Thus Moonbats are those that accept the full concequences of their political views even if that makes them raving revolutionaries. The article seem to imply that it would be better to be inconsistant. On another note prehaps I'm just a bit to extreme myself but I don't think George Monbiot is particulary extreme.--JK the unwise 15:35, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
 * "Unclear definition" is beside the point. The article describes the genesis and evolution of the term.  There are several articles in Wikipedia with unclear and often conflicting definitions.  However, the content in this article has value; possibly not to some, but it held value for me when I came looking for it. 138.145.211.130 12:18, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Actually what he means is someone who is "consistent" ie does or says the same thing over and over, even though repeating that thing is illogical or even insane.Xerex 01:56, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm going to remove the reference to Eric Raymond and the associated citation to http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/07/31/060731fa_fact as Raymond's use of the term obviously has no political connotation and only further muddies this article. If someone wants to create another entry for moonbat, defining it in the sense that Raymond uses it, great. 24.219.173.93 20:58, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Time of Coining of Phrase "Moonbat"
Was this really coined only in 2002? I thought the phrase "moonbat" had been in use for quite some time previously. I know the first time I saw it on a website, discoverthenetwork.org, I immediately knew what a "moonbat" was, and seemed familiar with it previously. So it might not have originated on the web.
 * It certainly did not originate on the web. It appeared as the name of a space ship in Robert Heinlein's short story "Space Jockey," first published in 1947, paired with a ship called the Gremlin. The pairing of these names suggests that they are both fantastic creatures that were more-or-less well known, though I can't be sure (another pair of ships were called the Flying Dutchman and the Philip Nolan, named after a ship and a person who can never return home, respectively, suggesting a thematic naming scheme). Of course, none of this bears on the term's usage as a political epithet. --Ruds 11:07, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * It's been in use before 2002. It took me about a minute on Google Groups to find it used in the same context - by noted right-wing columnist Jonah Goldberg no less - back in 1999. I'm sure there are earlier examples if anyone feels like digging. All this talk of having coined the phrase is really little more than a blogger stroking his own ego. --User:PerrydAviland
 * No, that link is not the same context or usage. Please provide a better link and stop removing material until you have. -- JJay 15:21, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh please, it's there in black and white. If you don't like my edits, please rewrite the article to show that the use of the term by deHavilland as an insult toward Monbiot was all he deHavilland 'coined'. I'm sorry we're going round in circles, but we shouldn't be using Wikipedia to bolster a blog's pagerank or a blogger's notoriety by publishing easily falsifiable LIES. --User:PerrydAviland
 * Again, the usage and context is not the same. Please provide some real evidence. -- JJay 16:02, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Goldberg's usage is in the context of 'crazy politics'. That is the same context as deHavilland's usage. Is something so plainly obvious really worth starting a flame war over? Why exactly does the term need to have been coined by him, anyway?

--User:PerrydAviland
 * That is your interpretation. It is not how I see the context. It is also not the general thinking on blogs that have discussed the issue. Furthermore, if you want to talk about "flame wars", we might discuss your removal of material with no other explanation than baseless accusations regarding page rank, egos, and "lying". The similarity between your user name and the Samizdata blogger is also quite intriguing. Please stop the trolling. -- JJay 16:23, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
 * If the Goldberg link stays in, I will go away. All I want to see is the truth. I ask again, why does it matter so much that this person coined the phrase? Why shouldn't Goldberg get some credit? --User:PerrydAviland

...Because the Goldberg link does not prove anything. Provide a source that "credits" Goldberg and he will get the "credit". -- JJay 16:34, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The article archived in Google Groups has a Jonah Goldberg byline, which implies to me that it was he who put pen to paper. You may disagree about the precise context, but please the link in and let people decide for themselves. It may even encourage others to keep digging. --User:PerrydAviland
 * See WP:OR. Again, I reiterate, the Goldberg article does not use the word in the same way or context. That you disagree is fine. It is not enough to remove material or insist that the link remain. Samizdata gets the "credit" because there are sources that make the claim- not you or me, but reputable third parties. -- JJay 16:48, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The same article is available at National Review Online, the link could be changed to point there if you like. But if someone's claim to fame is so precious as to warrant removal of the link, then so be it, I give up, wash it all down the memory hole and forget the whole thing. This episode has truly been an education in how 'freedom of speech' works round here. Goodbye! --User:PerrydAviland

I have a funny feeling our (trollish?) friend here might be on to something. If you search the National Review for 'moonbat' or 'moon bat' you'll find Jonah Goldberg using the phrase 'higher than a moonbat' a hell of a lot prior to 2002. This article nails it for me, including as it does the sentence "...many anti-state conservatives and libertarians think you’d have to be higher than a moon bat to support even the theoretical idea of a government-run TV network." - which is very, very close to (if not the same as) the usage of the phrase as discussed here. Perhaps there should be a paragraph about this in the article? --This Is Interesting 10:02, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * That does sound closer to the present usage. If you feel up to it, add the information with your reference. --JJay 23:28, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Internal article contradiction
Why do the first and second paragraphs directly contradict each other? The first paragraph states it was originally used to describe a left-wing commentator, and the second states it was originally coined to describe commentators on the *right*.

Most of this article, in fact, is somewhat confusing as to who "tends to be" called a moonbat more often, left or right. I suggest all of the "tendency" speculation be removed entirely, but I don't know enough about the issue to do it myself... Kimpire

Examples
I'm going to remove the line about "US invaded Iraq to drive up oil prices." Hoping this doesn't make me sound like a moonbat, but there is some strong evidence to support motives related to oil. I'm not a political analyst or an extremist, but I don't think that's a safe comparison to make. Kimos May 15/2006

Howie Carr usage
I added a reference to Howie Carr for usage. He's been using it every day on his radio show, and in many of his Boston Herald columns. I don't have a way to source the on the air comments (I hear him use it every day), but for the Herald reference, I linked to a Herald database query using "moonbat" as the search parameter, which spits out quite a few columns by Carr. Crockspot 12:57, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * There was a further definition of the term by Carr on his show on 2006-09-28. I added it in. As soon as an audio archive is available for that date from WRKO, I will post a link reference. Should only be a couple of days. Crockspot 04:37, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I removed the Howie Carr references as unverifiable since "only a couple of days" has more than elapsed. Furthermore, I deleted the former item #5 (reference to the Boston Herald search archives) under "Notes" as unverifiable as the site referenced required registration and payment in order to access. 24.219.173.93 18:45, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Its current usage is solely as a political epithet. Since the 'list of political epithets' entry has been deleted, it doesn't seem reasonable to keep references to the term 'moonbat's use as a political epithet. Please see the discussion of 'Friedman Unit'. I suggest that Howie Carr's use of the term be merged into the 'Howie Carr' entry and deleted from the 'moonbat' entry. 24.219.173.93 22:16, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Moonbat example
If you are okay with a person searching Wikipedia for the term'Moonbat' and being told'Word not found'...you might be a Moonbat.-Czarmangis

Organization and POV
The phrase stating explicitly, "that was not the original intention," is mildly POV because it implies that the "original intention" was better than the current one. Better to make it "original usage" or something similar.

All information about the history of the term ought to go in a second paragraph, after a brief introduction to the term that should include a generalized defintion of modern usage. Currently historical inofrmation is spread across all but the last paragraph.

Some of the definitions and usage statements are superfluous. The definition by Adriana Cronin-Lukas is cute but not useful. The three statements about de Havilland ought to be together.

The last two paragraphs are unclear and should be rearranged if not completely paraphrased.

The mention of ad hominem in the "See also" section has no business there. "Moonbat" is a perjorative. In all uses I have ever seen, it has never been used to reply to an argument or assertion, as the ad hominem article directly states. It is a simple insult that one uses to refer to a person, just like most other political epithets (see here).

There is no reason to associate the term moonbat with the term ad hominem, except to disparage its use. Yes, it is "against the person" but it is not a reply to anything.

Nescalona 01:44, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. It is often used as a reply. Very typical blog exchange is someone leaves a comment on a blog explaining some glaring right wing inconsistency and the next comment by a right wing fanboy says "Another moonbat posting ..." and a disparaging remark. (e.g. "did they leave the asylum open tonight") And thats it. By hurling this pejorative against his opponent the right wing fanboy specifically expresses that no other response to the comment is warranted, and so the smear definitely takes the place of a reply. Wefa 23:20, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

 * Any chance of a citation for this? By which I mean, a reliable source noting that the term's used in this way in general? Because we're going to get someone disagreeing with you and reverting your changes, and prolly sooner rather than later. Perhaps a re-phrasing of what you've writ might be wise? Sorry to be anal about this, but better me than someone with an axe to grind, nyet? Drjon 02:00, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

 * *sigh* I doubt blog comment sections a citeable - they expire too fast. But try it yourself - go to any of the usual suspects (free republic, little green footballs, redstate, malkin, you name it) and leave a comment debunking the usual nonsense held dear there. And wait for the responses (in case your posting and account survive long enough) Wefa 19:10, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

 * At least in practise, unless the 'blog in question is an authorative one, it's prolly not a good citation. If it *is* an authorative one, it'll have citations of its own which can be used instead. And I'm afraid I've got too much on my plate at present to help, sorry. Keep in mind that what you prolly need here isn't an example of the practise, but an example of the point you're making being analyzed and demonstrated, for instance in a paper analyzing semantic content of 'blogs. Drjon 03:17, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Moonbat might refer to a crazy person e.g. 'that Murielle is a right moonbat'

Self-contradictory article
"Moonbat is a political epithet coined in 2002 by Perry de Havilland of Samizdata.net a libertarian weblog. It was originally used as a play on the last name of George Monbiot, a columnist for The Guardian."

versus

"De Havilland says it was not originally a play on the last name of George Monbiot, a columnist for The Guardian"

 * Along the same lines: Several parts of the article (esp. paragraphs 2 and 6, as of Nov. 6, 2006) seem to overlap. --Ibn Battuta 18:58, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Etymology Count
Three!

Origins of the term: Sun Myung Moon
All of this is completely inaccurate, the term moonbat relates to Sun Myung Moon and the readers/followers of his far right outlets, specifically The Washington Times and the Unification Church.

Of course, the fact that reality is contnuously ignored on wikipedia doesn't surprise me at all, which is why it has become little more than a partisan battleground full of mudslinging and organized consensus on misinformation to further specific beliefs. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.171.214.1 (talk) 06:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC).

Moonbat does not appear to be related to moonie. The sentences alluding to this have been removed, since this is unsupported by any context or sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.206.196.188 (talk • contribs)

 * I have been using the term moonbat for several years, and this is the first time I have ever heard of any origins related to Moon. There are no sources to back up this claim either, so I am assuming it is a hoax or a fantasy. Crockspot 16:50, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Did some shuffling
I did some copyediting to improve the flow. Basically just took what was already in the article and shuffled it all around so that it makes more sense. I did some cite formatting too, still need to reformat a couple. I think it's much better now. I'm tired, I'll come back for another pass later. Crockspot 01:51, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

There. Fixed. Now it reads like an encyclopedic article. All text that didn't meet POV and RS requirements was justifiably excised. Blogs, radio shows, and published sources without fact-checking aren't good sources for encyclopedia articles. 71.100.230.32 02:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I reverted you. You blew away eight sources, only some of which is of questionable quality. You wouldn't be attempting to prep this article for AfD, would you? - Crockspot 03:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Sourcing issues
I want to run through the blog sources one by one, because I think there are some issues overall. We're better off looking for more RS sources of usage, like published columnists. - Crockspot 21:51, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) historybuff.com - I think this one can be considered reliable. The author is the founder of a newspaper collector's society, and he has access to primary sources. He has also written prolifically on his website. I'm still checking to see if he has anything published in print, but I think he can be considered a somewhat notable expert historian.
 * 2) BMEWS - Is there any reliable source crediting this blog with popularizing the term? While it's interesting, and I don't mind it being in the article, it probably doesn't meet WP:RS. Perhaps if it was just shown as an example of use, rather than making the claim that it popularized it, it would be less problematic. (see next point)
 * 3) The three blog examples added at the end. Again, I personally don't mind them, because they are just showing examples of use, and not supporting a claim. But under strict interpretation of the rules, someone else might remove them.

The paragraph beginning "Some right-leaning users of the term..." is very unencyclopedic and begs for citation. Anyone can make any claim about anything and say that 'some [unidentified] people' believe it. In addition, it doesn't add anything to the article that the 'definition' in the first paragraph doesn't already address. - 24.219.173.93 13:56, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

The sourcing on this page is just terrible. The citation to Safire's article leads to an International Herald Tribune page with no article on it, the Jonah Goldberg citation leads to an imaginary conversation in which Goldberg apparently has Bill Clinton using the phrase "high as a moonbat", and the Allen Kelly citation references a blog, which clearly doesn't pass muster as a reliable source. None of these are encyclopedic. I'm deleting them. 24.219.173.93 21:11, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

 * You were too hasty in your deletions. The Safire citation was and is perfectly fine, the link goes to a reprint of his NY Times column about language on the IHT web site.  I've reinstated this information, which I think was just about the only useful piece of information in the article.  I'm agnostic as to whether the Goldberg or Kelly stuff should be there and thus did not reinstate it.  However with the recent deletions the article looks fairly ridiculous now (and it was hardly stellar before), as the only example of "current use" is a Boston newspaper columnist using the term in reference to the state's governor.  More examples of "current use" probably need to be added in, or better yet the history of use section could be expanded.--Bigtimepeace | talk |  contribs 22:18, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I just added in quite a few more Herald uses from two other columnists, all from 2007 columns. There are a LOT more recent reliable sources (news columns) as well. Use of the term is going more mainstream all the time. I'll add them in as I have time. Crockspot 23:15, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Also something worth mentioning (I should make up a template for this, since I have to repeat it on so many article talk pages). A proper citation, particularly of a newspaper, does not require a url. As long as there is enough publication info to look the article up at a library reference desk, it's a valid cite. Courtesy links to full free articles are great when they are available, but if they go dead, simply remove the URL, not the entire citation. Links to abstracts or pay-per-view opportunites to purchase the article are also acceptable. Most holders of a library card can access these articles for free through their library, either online or in person. - Crockspot 23:33, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Moonbats in 1835? Probs not
I have deleted the following from the section explaining the History of Use:

 * The first documented use of the term was in a newspaper hoax perpetrated by the New York Sun in 1835, claiming that a British scientist, Sir Alfred Charles Bernard Lovell, using a new fangled type of telescope, the "Batscope", had discovered a race of bat-type creatures living on the moon.

You'll see some of the problems with these claims if you actually follow the link to the article on the History Buff web page which this passage cites (it seems no one has checked out this source before). The Great Moon Hoax of 1835 is well known and wikipedia has an article about it. But the astronomer in question who supposedly looked at the moon was not Bernard Lovell (he was born in 1913) but rather Sir John Herschel (who was actually alive in 1835). The hoax was quite a big deal, but the article at History Buff makes no mention of "moonbats." Part of the hoax was to say that there were, as the cited web site puts it, "furry, winged men resembling bats" on the moon but History Buff suggests they were called "man-bats" rather than moonbats.

I think the original article series from the New York Sun that created the whole moon hoax story is online somewhere so someone who cares could take a look at it and see if the phrase "moonbats" appears somewhere. If so the above sentence could be reinstated, but obviously with reference to Herschel as the astronomer rather than Lovell. My guess though is that there is no such reference. The original sentence mentions the "batscope" which sounds ridiculous to me and which has nothing to do with Sir Alfred Charles Bernard Lovell, Sir John Herschel, or the Great Moon Hoax as far as I know.

Safire's column is much more informative on the term "moonbats." He does date the earliest reference to Heinlein (and he apparently spent some time trying to figure out the etymology) so I think we should keep it at that and maybe even expand the History of Use section with some more info from the Safire piece.

Actually, to be honest, I think this whole article is still somewhat worthy of deletion but won't bring that up in a formal fashion. And incidentally, wherever the term came from, it does not appear in the Oxford English Dictionary.--Bigtimepeace 05:46, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I found the text of the Sun articles:, , , , and . You are correct, the word moonbat, or moon bat, does not appear in them. - Crockspot 19:33, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Clearly the term "moonbat" is meant to evoke something (or someone, in this case) radical, out-of-touch, fantastical or fantastically-minded. I wouldn't be surprised if the origins of the term actually did date back to the moon hoax, or rather to someone more recent thinking the hoax was especially funny and integrating it into his or her personal vocabulary. But there's no evidence. I think this could be integrated into the article as a possible theory, but... well, that would require someone having written about it, wouldn't it? WP is not for theorizing. So I think we've got pretty good coverage of WP-worthy info here. 71.246.90.113 23:14, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Attribution to Instapundit
here's a reliable source that attributes popularizing the term moonbat to Instapundit. - Crockspot 16:15, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Source leads
I've recently discovered that Google News has a new archive search. It's pretty useful, and I've pulled up articles on some subjects that were more than 200 years old. Often you only get an abstract, but it is enough to write a good cite. I searched for "moonbat", and every hit before 2003 was in reference to an unrelated footrace. (Obviously it isn't perfect, because it missed some of the earlier sources that have already been documented.) But here are links to the searches that did yield good results (by year). Crockspot 18:52, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Google News archive search 2003-2004
 * Google News archive search 2005
 * Google News archive search 2006
 * Google News archive search 2007

Article needs to be longer
Could someone lengthen the article (and maybe shorten the references? The reference section is almost as long as the article)? Purple Is Pretty 23:22, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Bias in the first sentence.
The first sentence in the entry reads: "Moonbat (also "barking moonbat" and "moonbat crazy") is a term often used currently in U.S. politics as a political epithet referring to anyone that is liberal or on the left. "Wingnut" (or "right wing nut") is frequently preferred as the analogous epithet aimed at extremists on the political right.[1]"

The highlighted texts indicate an apparent bias on the author's part. People on the left of the political spectrum are described as liberal or on the left, while those on the right are identified by the pejorative term "extremists". Does this mean that one can only be an extremist if one's views are conservative, or to the right of the political spectrum of opinion? Left-wing or liberal politicians cannot be extremists?

I also find the grammar to be a bit dodgy in places.

I suggest changing this sentence to read: ''Moonbat (also "barking moonbat" and "moonbat crazy")is a term often used in U.S. political discourse as a pejorative epithet referring to anyone regarded as being liberal or on the left. Likewise, "wingnut" (or "right wing nut") is frequently preferred as an analogous epithet for referring to anyone regarded as being conservative or on the right.'' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.38.206.168 (talk) 17:40, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Safire's misunderstanding of Heinlein's Moonbat
This is probably very pedantic and nitpicky, but the Moonbat as described in Heinlein's 'Space Jockey' was not the third stage of a single rocket, but was rather a spacecraft in its own right. Safire appears to have misinterpreted what Heinlein wrote, which was that the Moonbat carried out the third step of the Earth-moon journey, from a space station orbiting the moon to the lunar surface (the first two steps being from Earth's surface to a station in earth orbit in one ship, then from the Earth station to the lunar station in another). Perhaps the current text: as the name of the third stage of a rocket bound for the moon, should be replaced by something like: as the name of a spacecraft used to travel between a lunar space station and the moon's surface. 82.4.213.71 (talk) 20:34, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * And what any of this has t do with the usage of the term that is the subject of this article escapes me. There is no similar discussion of the mechanical fastener on the wingnut (political term) page. Wschart (talk) 22:19, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, I did admit I was being pedantic and nitpicky, didn't I? I would also argue that the origin of the word wingnut is not discussed on the corresponding page precisely because it is a familiar term used for an everyday physical object.  The term moonbat, on the other hand, is a neologism that does not refer to a real creature, and it is therefore worth examining the term's origins.82.14.89.77 (talk) 16:36, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Huh?
This article states: "One explanation for the current political use is that the term was derived from the name of liberal English author and activist George Monbiot." This appears to be obscure in the extreme - why would a term in the U.S. refer to some unknown Brit? Where's the reference for this? It certainly doesn't come from the only reference cited in the paragraph - indeed, that reference does mention the Heinlein story and also the bat-like XP-67 experimental pursuit plane (not bomber as the original NYT story mistakenly identifies it) which isn't even mentioned in this wiki piece. Suspect this is another attempt to wrangle in a UK connection into every wiki article - surprised this whole thing hasn't been re-written in UK English because this clearly is UK-based content. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.243.164.201 (talk) 23:46, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * This claim has been repeatedly reinstated; I just removed it again, as it's entirely unsourced. It seems some people have mistakenly got the idea that George Monbiot was the inspiration of the term, but there's no source that makes that claim; the only source that mentions him, samizdata, does so specifically to deny any connection: Robofish (talk) 12:58, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Counter-Usage?
The cartoon strip "This Modern World" by leftist cartoonist Tom Tomorrow has a pair of characters -- one of whom is a would-be Sherlock Holmes named "Conservative Jones". The other is his Watson-like sidekick. . . Moonbat McWacky. The usual pattern of strips when these two appear is that Conservative, who is dressed as a detective, asks Moonbat questions about politics. Moonbat gives reasonable answers, which Conservative turns into illogical statements about liberals. So this would seem to be a "counter-usage" of the term as it is defined here. [jalp] 209.172.14.154 (talk) 06:43, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Moonbat. 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 https://web.archive.org/20070314054732/http://news.bostonherald.com:80/columnists/view.bg?articleid=187135 to http://news.bostonherald.com/columnists/view.bg?articleid=187135

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 14:21, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Moonbat. 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 tag to http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=Y2Q2NWUyMjVhYzViMmZiZDgyMjA0ZjFjOWZjNjhiYjA=
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080709021703/http://www.menotomymoonbats.com:80/ to http://www.menotomymoonbats.com
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080709021703/http://www.menotomymoonbats.com:80/ to http://www.menotomymoonbats.com

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:47, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Moonbat. 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/20120217010440/http://hawk.heraldinteractive.com/news/opinion/columnists/view.bg?articleid=1104776 to http://hawk.heraldinteractive.com/news/opinion/columnists/view.bg?articleid=1104776
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.menotomymoonbats.com/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110613093230/http://news.bostonherald.com/news/regional/politics/view.bg?articleid=1110565 to http://news.bostonherald.com/news/regional/politics/view.bg?articleid=1110565
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://news.bostonherald.com/columnists/view.bg?articleid=187135
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.menotomymoonbats.com/

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) 01:01, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Governor Moonbeam
May be connected to "governor moonbeam", an unflattering nickname of Jerry Brown Jr. as governor of California... AnonMoos (talk) 05:31, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Definition
Greetings, all. The current definition of the term in the article is as follows: " a pejorative political epithet used in United States politics, referring to liberals, progressives, or leftists (especially the far-left)." In the text itself, though, an example cited of the term's usage shows that "moonbat" is also used for conservative commentators such as Jonah Goldberg. I'd suggest we need both stronger sourcing and a more nuanced definition. -The Gnome (talk) 09:17, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Moonbat


text:
North American Division of Seventh-day Adventists

The North American Division (NAD) of Seventh-day Adventists is a sub-entity of the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, which oversees the Church's work in the United States, Canada, French possessions of St. Pierre and Miquelon, the British overseas territory of Bermuda, the US territories in the Pacific of Guam, Wake Island, Northern Mariana Islands, and three states in free association with the United States - Palau, the Marshall Islands, and the Federated States of Micronesia. Founded in 1913, its headquarters in the same building as the General Conference, moved to separate quarters in Columbia, Maryland in 2017. , the Division's membership was 1,267,711.

Organization
The North American Division is divided into nine Union Conferences, one National Church, and one attached Mission. The Unions and National Church are divided into local Conferences. Nine of these local Conferences are African-American Conferences (AAC) that share the same territory with other local Conferences.


text:
The Basque Ball: Skin Against Stone

The Basque Ball: Skin Against Stone (La pelota vasca: la piel contra la piedra; Euskal pilota: larrua harriaren kontra) is a 2003 Spanish documentary film written and directed by Julio Medem.

Overview
The film's purported intention is to create a bridge between the different political positions that coexist, sometimes violently, in the Basque Country. In order to do so, Medem edits the interviews giving a sense of dialogue between parties that refused to sit down and talk. Due to its lack of contextualization, the film may be hard to understand to audiences without previous knowledge of the Basque problem—it is obviously a film designed to be viewed by Spanish audiences, or people familiar with the issues.

The movie also utilizes footage from the Basque portions of the 1955 travelogue Around The World With Orson Welles, and continually intercuts between interviews and jai alai players.

Criticism
One of the main controversies of the documentary is that the two principal protagonists in the controversy, the then incumbent Partido Popular and ETA refused to take part in the interviews. The former went so far as to request the organisers of the Donostia-San Sebastian International Film Festival to reconsider the film's suitability. This, in turn, has led some to call it an incomplete documentary.

It has also been openly criticized by both extremes, and Medem, who is Basque, has been accused of being both pro-ETA and pro-"Spanish occupation". Indeed, two of the interviewees, Iñaki Ezquerra and Gotzone Mora (both members of the intellectual group the Ermua Forum) demanded that Medem retract their interviews, accusing him of presenting the Spanish Guardia Civil and police forces as torturers and ETA and their followers as victims. Despite these protests, their interviews remained due to the film's imminent release date. They did not, however, appear on the 7-hour DVD Edition.

There is a three-disc special edition DVD (ISBN 0-499-01513-4) released with seven hours of edited footage that goes deeper into the history of the Basque Country and a Spanish-language book (ISBN 84-03-09425-6).

Awards and nominations

 * 2004: Nominated, Goya Awards, Best Documentary
 * 2004: Nominated, European Film Awards, Best Documentary
 * 2004: Nominated, Cartagena Film Festival, Best Film

title: The Basque Ball: Skin Against Stone


text:
Hundar

Hundar may refer to:

Places

 * Hundar, India, a village in the Leh district of Ladakh, India famous for sand dunes and Bactrian camels
 * Hundar Dok, a village in the Leh district of Jammu and Kashmir, India
 * Hondor, Lorestan, a village in Lorestan Province, Iran

People

 * Robert Hundar (1935–2008), Italian film actor and stage actor

title: Hundar


text:
Talk:Om

"Pronounced AUM" ??
There are various references throughout the article to the "sound" "AUM", apparently always written in block capitals. In particular we have this: "the three phonetic components of Om (pronounced AUM)". Well, what on earth is it supposed to mean? From the fact that "Aum" redirects to "Om", I gather that both of these forms have been used to represent the subject of the article. I expect that articles on religious topics will have some obfuscatory imponderables within them, but a statement as specific as a reference to "three phonetic components" should contain something which we can identify as phonetic, such as bits of IPA. "AUM" is only really three phonetic components if it is pronounced /ei:-ju:-em/ or similar. Other parts of the article suggest that "Om" is a syllable: this really could do with some explanation... Imaginatorium (talk) 15:42, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

 * , I believe you hit the nail on the head when you said that "I expect that articles on religious topics will have some obfuscatory imponderables within them"; granted, even this ambiguity could be explained in the article. Although I don't have a source, maybe you'll find this useful.  I have learned anecdotally from various different sources in my own life--that is, from speaking with a Vedantic scholar, a swami who is practiced in maintaining the Vedic oral tradition, as well as from some ordinary elder Hindus--that how many pronounce aum is actually more than 'three' discrete components, although 'AUM' does seem to do it some justice at least in representing three large arcs of this pronunciation while maintaining the poetic brevity of the symbol.  Even now, I am not exactly sure how I could possibly write the pronunciation as I would have to really study my oral organs and how to express articulation, or perhaps it's not effectively communicated in terms of discrete representation. It's "meant" to be enjoyed, shared, communicated on a human level in the realm of sound.  The way I understood it was that it starts with the 'A' (ah?) and through a wonderful and perhaps 'natural feeling' movement of the mouth and tongue, ends with 'M'--but the smooth transition flows from A to M in a sort of journey.  Take that with a grain of salt as it's anecdotal and I could definitely be off.  This is only how it was expressed to me--I'm sure there are spiritual and metaphysical connotations that I am yet to fully comprehend too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nsawhney92 (talk • contribs) 11:49, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Say om in a sage like form you will hear the om three times in your mouth it's simple as that 950CMR (talk) 23:55, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Komutr? info re:Khmer/Thai
"Komutr" is a loan from an Indian language, the original word being Gomutra which refers to cow urine. Sounds dodgy enough to be vandalism, except it's what the the reference actually states so maybe I'm missing some cultural context. Having searched the relevant Khmer terms, I've found no other sources that affirm this claim. The two refs given for the Khmer info in the article both come from the same site. I don't read Khmer, so I'm relying on automatic translation, but they look to be unsupported blog posts. Accordingly, I suspect this is misinformation. Does anyone happen to know otherwise? Scyrme (talk) 02:49, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The article reads: ""In Khmer literature, the symbol is called Komutr (Khmer: គោមូត្រ).""
 * The best leads I've found are the Unicode characters Khmer Sign Koomuut [៚] (U+17DA) and Thai Character Khomut [๛] (U+0E5B) which are representations of the Urna - although the Urna/Unalome is often conflated with Om in Southeast Asia. Plenty of informal webpages mention this punctuation under this name. Still no idea why they're apparently named after cow urine. The original refs don't seem to elaborate, but that could just be bad translation. Regardless, afaik, they're still blog posts and so probably need to be replaced by better sources. Does anyone know of any better/more informative sources? Scyrme (talk) 03:13, 25 August 2021 (UTC); edited 21:13, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Thelemic numerology
I restored the link to English Qabalah since that page explains the principle of numerology/gematria while Hermetic Qabalah literally doesn't even mention it, and Crowley uses English letters in Liber Samekh wherein he identifies MGN as having a value of 93 so this technically counts as an example (of what is described in the lead of English Qabalah, at least). Additionally, Hermetic and English Qabalah aren't mutually exclusive, since the latter is inspired by the former anyway afaik; I'm not convinced it's an important distinction in this context. Regardless, English Qabalah is a far more helpful target. -- Scyrme (talk) 19:57, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Written representations: South Asia
Isn't "the vowel diacritic े (u)" wrong? That े is o, not u. The diacritic for a short u is ु. O at the beginning of a word is written as ओ, rendering oṃ in simple form as ओँ, then as ॐ. But I am not a Sanskrit scholar. Wokepedian (talk) 13:03, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

 * Are things different in South Asia to India? Wokepedian (talk) 13:12, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I've amended the article; how is it now? (Also, India is part of South Asia.) – Scyrme (talk) 16:06, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Capitalization
Om is mostly (though not consistently) capitalized in this article. Is there a reason for that? It's not a proper name as far as I understand. ehn (talk) 06:36, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

 * Hi @Ehn - I have seen it mostly written as capitalized - "Om". It is a sacred syllable and symbol, so I think it is treated/considered as a proper noun. Asteramellus (talk) 22:21, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

 * Satchidananda, in his book The Yoga Sutras of Patanjali (Integral Yoga Publications, 2012, 978-1-938477-07-2), consistently prints OM in block capitals, as the sacred syllable: he does this for no other element in the entire book. There are 22 instances on pages 40–43. By the way, those pages also explain the way the A-U-M sounds merge in the mouth to sound like OM: and readers can try it for themselves, or course, to see how it works. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:49, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @Chiswick Chap yes you are right. Reading further in few other books also seems when referring to the sacred sound, "OM" (or "AUM") is capitalized - not just the first letter, as I thought earlier. Asteramellus (talk) 21:02, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Many thanks. Chiswick Chap (talk) 02:29, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Om


text:
User:Theinfo

I'm an experienced veteran of the internet industry currently living in New York City.

I've found Wikipedia extremely useful as a reference site, and contribute a littte time as a way to return the favor.

I'm enjoying deconstructing Wikipedia. I believe that it's one of the greatest web sites created so far. By allowing all to edit, it's much closer to Ted Nelson's conception of hypertext (which incorporated the idea of annotation) than the average web site. Wikipedia has been very successful in leveraging the small efforts of many (those who create the articles) to create a whole greater than the sum of its parts. I am a big proponent of open source technology, which Wikipedia brings the literate masses on a scale orders of magnitude greater than sourceforge. I also appreciate the similarity between Wikipedia and the guidebook in The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.

Mostly I start articles on art, music, history, business, New York City, and technology--the topics that I know. I prefer to write short new articles than add to existing ones, as I am a rather slow writer. I enjoy planting seeds and watching the articles grow over time. The evolution of information and the convergence to a neutral point of view is great to watch.

The community aspects of Wikipedia are fascinating and worth study as a social phenomenon. There's several graduate thesis of material in there. I recommend The Professor and the Madman by Simon Winchester for all Wikipedians. It tells the story of how the Oxford English Dictionary was built primarily by a number of volunteers, including one who was institutionalized for insanity. A telling analogy for the creation of this endeavor. I had the opportunity of personally recommending this book to Jimmy Wales in 2005.

I also recommend the book The Wisdom of Crowds by James Surowiecki as another reference providing insight into the strengths and weaknesses of Wikipedia.

The majority of Wikipedians don't seem to be particularly good as graphic designers. If you don't know what you're doing, please stay away from the all the boxes and colors, and just keep things simple. Clarity is the goal.

title: User:Theinfo


text:
Talk:Sphere packing

Kissing Number
This page conflicts with kissing number problem where it claims that the densest packings are known up to 8-D. They are known for 1, 2, 3, 8, and 24 dimensions, but not others. -- Taral 21:33, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * I don't think there is a conflict here. Kissing number problem is a different problem from sphere/hypersphere packing. The kissing number problem depends on local packing properties whereas sphere/hypersphere packing concerns the global property of average density. Also note that the sphere packing article says "the densest regular packings of hyperspheres are known up to 8 dimensions" - regular packings are sometimes called lattice packings. It is possible that denser irregular packings may exist in some dimensions - indeed the major difficulty in solving the 3D case is in ruling out the existence of an irregular packing with an average density that is higher than that of the cubic/hexagonal close packing (see Kepler conjecture). See MathWorld for more details. Gandalf61 09:15, Aug 17, 2004 (UTC)

Hamming distance
I have to question the sanity of saying that spheres in the corners of a hypercube have their size determined by hamming distance. At the very least, the article on hamming distance seems to be the wrong topic. I'm very familiar with digital signal processing, but I don't know much about 4D geometry, so I am unwilling to make an edit. Still, someone should check this - and if they are related somehow, I would love to know! --Ignignot 20:23, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)

Oranges
i think the picture of the oranges is a bad example because it barely shows sphere packing.

and on a sphere?
Is there an article on arrangements of nodes on a sphere, including packing, covering, and the Thomson problem? —Tamfang 00:33, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

 * It appears so. There is this: Circle packing and this: Thomson problem 130.66.206.111 (talk) 14:56, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Current known packing inefficient?
The current known packing for three dimensions has density of about .74 and it was suggested that there might be a denser packing allowing a thirteenth sphere to be added. Can someone confirm this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.149.204.116 (talk • contribs) 16:29, 30 July 2006

 * When two spheres of the same radius are tangent, each, as seen from the centre of the other, fills less than 1/13 of the "sky"; for this reason it was long believed by some eminent mathematicians that a "kissing" arrangement of 13 around 1 must be possible, but 12 was eventually proven to be the limit. —Tamfang 01:03, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

 * For more details see our article on the Kepler conjecture. Gandalf61 09:56, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

 * Or not. That article says little about the substance of the proof, and nothing about whether 13 spheres can kiss another, which is a question independent of the Kepler Conjecture.  —Tamfang 00:36, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

 * Indeed. The question of how many spheres can be arranged to touch a central sphere is the kissing number problem, but the kissing number in 3 dimensions was shown to be 12 and not 13 in 1874, so I am not sure why the original questioner would be unclear about the status of the 3D kissing number problem. Possibly the original questioner had got the two problems mixed up. Gandalf61 14:16, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Animated Image
The animated image was removed in a bold edit. However, the removal was reverted. An editor should not revert a revert until consensus has been established to remove the image. I think it's fine, and there is no absolute law against allegedly "distracting" images - it's still very illustrative and relevant to this article. I would ask that the user who is removing this image not engage in edit warring and instead discuss his changes instead of forcing them onto the article. This runs contrary to how Wikipedia is meant to function - collaboratively and through consensus-building. --Cheeser1 16:55, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

 * I didn't follow the revert history etc., but I think the image is distracting. The rotation does not show anything particular which would not be clear when giving a static picture. The effect of the pseudo-transparency is also questionable. Plus, the background of the image is just distracting, as well. Keith Devlin's book "Pattern in mathematics" (or similar) has some good illustrations on this topic. If a gifted editor is able to somehow reproduce this kind of style, I would prefer it over the rotating image given there right now. Jakob.scholbach 19:01, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

 * I also find it distracting and uninformative. I agree with Jakob.scholbach.  -- Dominus 19:37, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

 * I would then propose that we attempt to find a suitable alternate image. Until then, I see no reason to have no such image in the article. There's nothing requiring us to immediately remove it, so let's leave it in until we find a replacement? I think that sounds reasonable. --Cheeser1 20:35, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

 * I've now replaced it with a single frame from the animation, which I think is enough to show the geometry. --Salix alba (talk) 20:46, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

 * Yes, that's better. However, now, that the animation is no longer distracting, it is even more obvious (to me, personally) that the image itself is ugly and doesn't convey the geometric message clearly. After a quick search, I ended up at, which has some nicer images. (don't know if they are free). Jakob.scholbach 21:54, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

 * I don't think those are illustrating the same packing principles. I also don't think it's "ugly" - that is subjective, certainly, but I believe the still image does a good job of conveying the idea (Salix, thanks for fixing it up). If there's no objective or agreed-upon reason to remove it, I'd say the still is fine. If you find a free alternative, I'd love to see it, and perhaps we can all agree on it as a better substitute. --Cheeser1 23:28, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

The image displayed in the still frame and in the animation is a tetrahedron, not a pyramid. A pyramid has a four-sided, square base and four three-sided walls (like the pyramids in Egypt). A tetrahedron has a equilateral triangle for a base and three equilateral triangles for walls, giving the shape four equal sides (i.e. tetra- (four) hedron). I suggest renaming it. I'd do it myself, but the process looks complicated. Tdbostick (talk) 13:00, 5 May 2011 (UTC)Tim Bostick

 * The Egyptian pyramids are square pyramids. A general pyramid's base can be any polygon. —Tamfang (talk) 06:56, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

curved space
H. S. M. Coxeter remarks that there are arrangements of equal spheres in both positively and negatively curved space that exceed the Kepler density. I think it's in The Beauty of Geometry; will look for it later. —Tamfang (talk) 01:45, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

 * Ah, here we go:
 * Elliptic 3-space presents a different state of affairs: sixty spheres of radius π/10, each touching twelve others, form a packing of density 0.774, and somewhat larger spheres (having the same centres) form a covering of density 1.439, whereas in Euclidean space the maximum packing-density and minimum covering density are almost certainly 0.740 and 1.464.
 * In hyperbolic 3-space, no superior arrangements of finite spheres are known, but horospheres provide a packing of density 0.853 and a covering of density 1.280.
 * —"Arrangements of Equal Spheres in Non-Euclidean Spaces", Acta Mathematica Acad. Sci. Hungaricae, Tomus V (1954); reprinted in Twelve Geometric Essays (1968), retitled The Beauty of Geometry (1999).
 * —Tamfang (talk) 06:38, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Sphere packing and Close-packing
I'm not a mathematician, but these two seem to overlap to a fair extent. Shouldn't they be merged? dorftrottel (talk) 20:53, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

 * No. The close-packing problem is a special case of sphere packing. Close-packing deals only with regular arrangements in 3 dimensions, whereas sphere packing deals with the more general problem of finding dense packings of any type (regular or irregular) in any number of dimensions. Gauss solved the close-packing problem in 1831, but the general sphere packing problem is much harder, and it was not solved in 3 dimensions until 1998, by Thomas Hales. The Sphere packing artcile links to the Close-packing article at the top of its Regular packing section, and it would become unbalanced and too long if we merged the two articles. I oppose the merge proposal, and I have amended the lead of the Close-packing article to clarify the difference between the articles. Gandalf61 (talk) 08:27, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

 * Oh, ok. Thanks for the explanation and for clarifying the article intro. It wasn't obvious to me from reading the article intros. Removing the merge tags btw. dorftrottel (talk) 13:31, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 * If factually correct, a simple statement in the very first sentence of Close-packing might be a good idea. Speaking as the non-expert, the difference between the concepts (or rather: the relationship between the article topics) is still not ovbious. Maybe something as simple as "Close-packing is a special case of sphere packing"? dorftrottel (talk) 13:37, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Sphere packing in Chemistry
It was recently found that sphere packing has direct, although still unexplained, connection to the arrangement of the elements in the periodic table, as shown here. It is thought provoking and fascinating. My view is that it would be benefitial for atracting more attention to the field of Sphere Packing if this web site is listed among the external links. What do you think? Drova (talk) 13:29, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

 * I don't think that belongs in this article. The point of the article is address how spheres stack, not geometric consequences relating to the periodic table. If anything it belongs on that page or with something related to atomic chemistry. IncidentalPoint (talk) 16:52, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

 * Drova, you made a similar suggestion a couple of months ago at Talk:Close-packing of spheres. This link was rejected as inappropriate for Wikipedia. It is not within Wikipedia's remit to promote non-notable unpublished theories, no matter how thought provoking and fascinating they might appear to be. Sorry, but I don't think your link belongs here. Gandalf61 (talk) 17:14, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

 * Just to let you know that this web site was recently refered to by Oxford professor Philip Stewart in his January 2009 article in Foundations of Chemistry magazine entitled "Charles Janet: unrecognized genius of the periodic system" where he noted ADOMAH PT as the improved version of Janets LSPT.Drova (talk) 14:25, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Density in 24-dimensions
If it is proven that the 24-dimensional regular sphere packing has the highest density, is the actual (numerical) density known? If it is, that certainly should be in the article. Eebster the Great (talk) 07:17, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Merger proposal
I propose to merge the page Packing problem into Sphere packing. This shouldn't be too difficult as the second article is written beautifully whereas the first one contains lots of numbers (without citations) that don't tell you anything. And the style in the first one is quite relaxed (eg., "Packing problems are one area where mathematics meets puzzles (recreational mathematics)"). There is a second reason I want to cleanup Packing problem: In computer science, packing problems are combinatorial optimization problems (eg., the set packing problem) and they are LP-dual to covering problems. Of course, the combinatorial meaning is related to sphere packing, and there will be a disambiguation at the top of the page. I want to extend the article packing problem to the combinatorial and computational aspects and before I can do that, it needs a cleanup of experts in sphere packing. ylloh (talk) 22:49, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Only problem I have is that sphere packing is often not a puzzle but a real-world problem of atomic packing, packed beds, etc. The two could be combined if the focus was changed a little. IncidentalPoint (talk) 00:26, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

 * I think the word "puzzle" is more meant as a funny description of what is going on. The article Packing problem addresses different versions of circle packing but also square packing. At least the first one is the two-dimensional case of Sphere packing. The "puzzle" metaphor is quite good, but really shouldn't be the introductory explanation of this kind of packing problems. Now that I looked at Packing problem a little more closely, it seems to be just a list of optimal packing constant in different situations. This definitely does not belong into a main article but should rather be something like list of optimal packing constants and needs good references. ylloh (talk) 12:15, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

 * Oppose merge. Packing problems involve the efficient packing of objects (typically spheres) into various finite shapes and regions; sphere packing involves efficient packing of spheres and hyperspheres in infinite spaces. Very different types of problem. Gandalf61 (talk) 11:51, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

 * I also oppose. Not only are the problems typically different, but the Packing problem page is growing large.  CRGreathouse (t | c) 00:13, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

 * I also oppose, packing is clearly about more than spheres, and there is plenty of content here, it just needs to be cleaned up. 99of9 (talk) 00:50, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

small spheres on large spheres
It would be nice to have a simple discussion and formula for how many small spheres of diam D1 can pack on the surface of a larger sphere diam D265.220.64.105 (talk) 18:06, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

 * Lots of people would be pleased to have such a formula. —Tamfang (talk) 00:31, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Tangled edit links
At the top of section 3 Hypersphere Packing, there are two edit links. The second is for the previous subsection 2.2 Irregular Packing. Obviously this is incorrect, but I don't know how it was caused or how to fix it. Any ideas? Anywhere else that this could be asked? Elroch (talk) 09:02, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

 * It happens because your browser (and mine) doesn't cope well with multiple 'floating' objects on the right margin. —Tamfang (talk) 18:00, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Merger proposal
Shouldn't Close-packing of spheres be merged into this article? Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 14:21, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

 * Or vice versa. —Tamfang (talk) 21:20, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

 * Since according the article Close-packing of spheres, a Close-packing is a regular arrangement of spheres and according to this article a sphere packing can also be irregular, I think it would make more sense to merge the way I suggested above, because the close packings seem to be a subset of the sphere packings. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 21:46, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

 * I'd prefer not to. Close-packed structures are one very particular solution to one very particular sphere packing problem (equal spheres in 3-d Euclidean space).   I agree it's a subset of this page, but this page should cover much more, and will get very long if we explain the details of every solution.  That particular solution is so important that it deserves a page of it's own, and since it's already got sufficient content, I think we should leave it like that. --99of9 (talk) 06:23, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Can we bring this to GA quality?
Is anyone interested in collaborating with me for a drive to get this article to GA quality? --99of9 (talk) 11:47, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Irregular Packing Density
In the section on irregular packing (Sphere packing), it says, "This irregular packing will generally have a density of about 64%." But then in the next sentence it says, "Recent research predicts analytically that it cannot exceed a density limit of 63.4%". This seems contradictory. Shouldn't the first number be at most 63% (if we are rounding)? Even then, it looks odd to me that the general packing density is so close to the upper bound. 130.66.206.111 (talk) 15:03, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Number of regular close-packs?
I once saw a table providing the number of different regular close-packs in various dimensions. If I recall correctly, it was 1 in most dimensions, except its 2 in 3D (fcc and hcp), some number in 6 and a bigger number in 10 dimensions, and an explosion in 24 due to leech lattice, and then back to 1 for the rest. Is my memory faulty? Where can this table be found? 67.198.37.16 (talk) 17:13, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Optimal packings for dimensions n>3 not yet shown
The article states that "In dimensions higher than three, the densest regular packings of hyperspheres are known up to 8 dimensions.[8] ". But the optimal (i.e. densest) packings for dimensions higher than 3 are only postulated and not known, as [8] clearly states. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:168:7406:0:A544:DB60:A8BB:3AEF (talk) 15:20, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The densest regular packings are known for all those dimensions, not the densest packings in general (save for dimensions 8 and 24, in which we now know that the densest regular packing is actually the best overall). XOR'easter (talk) 15:26, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Ok thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:168:7406:0:A544:DB60:A8BB:3AEF (talk) 16:48, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

4D sphere packing = doughnut packing! ~  JasonCarswell   (talk)   21:29, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

What is this called?
1 center circle ringed by 6, then those now 7 center circles fenced in by 9 around the border, then those 16 ringed by 18, then those 34 ringed by 24, then those 58 ringed by ---,...  This 2D hexagonal circle packing ratio/equation must have a name as well as versions for 3D and higher. Please link to it here and/or try to include some of it on these "packing" pages. Thanks in advance. ~  JasonCarswell   (talk)   21:26, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

FCC and HCP are not both lattices?
The article currently states "Two simple arrangements within the close-packed family correspond to regular lattices. One is called cubic close packing (or face-centred cubic, "FCC")—where the layers are alternated in the ABCABC... sequence. The other is called hexagonal close packing ("HCP")—where the layers are alternated in the ABAB... sequence." I have tagged that statement as dubious. says on page 127 "The f.c.c. and h.c.p. packings have the same density, but they are different: one is a lattice, the other is not." So the article currently seems to be wrong in stating both arrangements correspond to lattices. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 12:04, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

 * You're right. In a lattice, the translation that takes the first layer to the second layer should, when applied to the second layer, produce the third layer. This is the case for the FCC packing but not for the HCP packing. In the article, the packings are formed by stacking horizontal layers of balls, each layer a translate of a regular triangular lattice. Let $$A=\left\{m(1,0)+n\left(\frac{1}{2},\frac{\sqrt{3}}{2}\right) \mid m,n\in\mathbf{Z}\right\},$$ be the points of this lattice, $$B=A+v,$$ with $$v=\left(\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2\sqrt{3}}\right),$$ the set of barycenters of the upward pointing triangles in this lattice, and $$C=B+v=A+2v$$ the set of barycenters of downward pointing triangles in this lattice. Note that $$3v\in A$$, so that $$A=C+v$$.

 * Then the FCC lattice is

 * $$\ldots\cup (A-3u)\cup (B-2u)\cup (C-u)\cup A\cup (B+u)\cup (C+2u)\cup (A+3u)\cup\ldots,$$

 * while the sphere centers in the HCP arrangement are the points of

 * $$\ldots\cup (B-3u)\cup (A-2u)\cup (B-u)\cup A\cup (B+u)\cup (A+2u)\cup (B+3u)\cup\ldots,$$

 * where $$u$$ is the vertical displacement between layers. The HCP arrangement contains the point $$v+u$$. If it were a lattice, it should also contain $$2v+2u,$$ which would have to lie in the $$A+2u$$ layer. One can easily see that this is not the case.

 * The subsequent section of the article mentions the "hexagonal lattice" and the "tetrahedral lattice". I'm not sure what these are, but it should be checked that they also really are lattices. Also, the definition of lattice, which is given in the preceding section of the article, could stand to be tightened up a little. Will Orrick (talk) 15:48, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Sphere packing


text:
Talk:Northern fur seal

Northern Fur Seal
The German version of this article looks extremely good - maybe we should borrow it some more - http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/N%C3%B6rdlicher_Seeb%C3%A4r

That picture
That picture currently in the article is not a northern fur seal (maybe a steller sea lion?). I'm going crazy trying to figure out how to change the image with proper attribution, but in the meantime a picture of an actual northern fur seal male can be found at http://nmml.afsc.noaa.gov/AlaskaEcosystems/nfshome/nfsGallery/pages/SNP92bull.htm.
 * replaced image as suggested. good eye there!Sabine's Sunbird 04:07, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The range map is wrong
The range map is wrong, it doesn't even match up with the text. The Northern Fur seal ranges down the American Coast at least to San Francisco.Sabine's Sunbird 04:38, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Definetly. I thought the map looked funny. -- Jason Palpatine 03:06, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and replaced it with the one from the German article. --TeaDrinker 20:45, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Request move
Making a blanket (well, there are some holes) request to uncapitalize these articles:

Northern Fur Seal → Northern fur seal—Standard lowercasing for marine mammal articles (e.g. Elephant seal, Polar bear, Sea otter) Eliezg (talk) 01:47, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Ribbon Seal → Ribbon seal
 * Bearded Seal → Bearded seal
 * Harbor Seal → Harbor seal
 * Weddell Seal → Weddell seal
 * Ross Seal → Ross seal
 * Crabeater Seal → Crabeater seal
 * Steller Sea Lion → Steller sea lion
 * Spotted Seal → Spotted seal

. Eliezg (talk) 01:47, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) Support as this is most common in the literature on these critters (indeed marine science generally). There are certainly examples of each caps format in the literature, following the conventions of the journals publishing the work. However there's more frequent publication in marine science journals (which tend to use the fisheries lower case convention) than in the general naturalist/biology journals (which have a mixture, but often come from a birding tradition of all uppercase convention). Marine Mammal Science, for example, uses the lower case form. --TeaDrinker (talk) 03:51, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) Support: These don't seem to be proper nouns and policy is quite clear on casing in article titles. –CWenger (talk) 02:36, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) Support: (unsurprising, since I proposed it). I might add (as a response to the Neutral comment below: "I don't see much sense in these page moves simply for casing") that besides the fact that sentence case is almost universally accepted in the scientific literature and the intrinsic esthetic value of consistency between articles (note the Hawaiian monk seal but the Mediterranean Monk Seal), an additional point is that in the process of wikilinking articles between, e.g., obscure but related seal species, links occasionally won't work when using the straightforward sentence case, and it is a bit of nuisance to always have to create redirects. It was the third new redirect that prompted this request in the first place.
 * Incidentally, a more thorough canvassing of the pinnipeds brings up the following unnecessarily capitalized articles:
 * Phocids: Mediterranean Monk Seal, Caribbean Monk Seal, Northern Elephant Seal, Southern Elephant Seal, Caspian Seal, Harp Seal, Grey Seal
 * Otariids: Antarctic Fur Seal, Guadalupe Fur Seal, Subantarctic Fur Seal, South American Sea Lion, New Zealand Sea Lion, California Sea Lion, Japanese Sea Lion
 * (Curiously, the Australian/New Zealand/Southern Fur Seal is the only pinniped I see whose article title is the scientific name Arctocephalus forsteri.) In any case, if all of these were renamed, then the pinnipeds would be covered and consistent. I am not sure if I can just tack this list on the Move request above, since so much of this process is automated and BOT-controlled. Any advice from people with experience? Best, Eliezg (talk) 23:53, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Kangaroo or kiwi seal? I suspect a bitter feud... walk victor falktalk 15:03, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

 * 1) Support lowercase all per policies (wp:lowercase, wp:at, wp:mos) and arguments of editors above. walk  victor falktalk 15:03, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Neutral

 * 1) Not opposed. I prefer sentence case titles on all articles, but I don't see much sense in these page moves simply for casing. Bob the WikipediaN  (talk • contribs) 03:29, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

title: Talk:Northern fur seal