text:
Talk:Miracle

First comments
I do not think that this material belongs in this article. It seems to better be suited for an article on writing, culture, drama, or something like that. RK 14:00, Jul 23, 2004 (UTC) A miracle which me must believe in.

 * In this view, miracles do not really occur. Rather, they are the product of creative story tellers. They use them to embellish a hero or incident with a theological flavor. Using miracles in a story allow characters and situations to become bigger than life, and to stir the emotions of the listener more than the mundane and ordinary.

 * In the world of miracle, wonder and faith the imposssible become the possible. Through bravery and courage, charity, sacrifice and reason Good always triumps over evil. Deep inside each person is the longing to see the extraordinary, undenial, proof of goodness and divine love; and a personal desire for someone (perhaps even ourselves) to be special and possess wondrous powers to right wrongs for someone's benefit. Story tellers know miracle stories inspire wondrous deeds. Everyone wants to be a hero and bring about happiness. In these stories these deeds happen, dispelling doubt and uplifting faith.

 * Critical science and history take a back seat. Those far outside the world of the artistic story teller have difficulty understanding: for them there is only fact and fiction. It is easy for modern people to stop believing. Many of our ancestors did not. They held on to miracles and optimism in very brutal times.

Doesn't seem here to be any sceptical view of miracles - either from atheist or Protestant point of view. Or indeed how Catholics view miracles claimed by other faiths.

Exile 11:53, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Orthodox Christianity is the most powerful mystical religion. It is. Has the most miracles that happend yearly: Holy Light - in Jerusalem on Orthodox Easter on the place Jesus resurected Jordan river moving back - every year on the day Jesus was baptised but last year Jordan river moves back when Bishop of Jerusalem performs a celebration of Jesus Baptism. Every year on the transfiguration day, a cloud comes on Mount Tabor where Transfiguration happend. Through prayer Holy Water changes molecular movement from brownian movement to something different and resists for years being good to drink. Bodies being incoruptible: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ptg3RVtoeYA&feature=channel_page many many more like monks speaking with Jesus, St Mary, saints, angels. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.116.235.204 (talk) 13:52, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

The video presented here doesn't show any miracle happening so I think it is better been elaborated here rather than speaking from one point of view which is what I'm doing, clearly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.55.108.80 (talk) 13:53, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Miracles and "Canonization"
Is it still true that one must have two miracles attributed to him/her (posthumously) based on appeals to his/her spirit to intervene in order to be considered for canonization as a saint? If so, does this belong in the article at some place?

Answer: Sometimes. Two posthumous miracles are required for canonization, unless the candidate was martyred for his faith (martyrs don't need miracles to become saints).

Rlquall 21:23, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The final section, particularly the last paragraph, is a bit preachy for my liking. I'd agree that a more sceptical view of miracles should be added to the article as a whole.

e03bf085 21:35, 1 Apr 2005 (BST)

40,000,000+ miracles
I quote the following from the Catholic part of the article: Since Adam and Eve set foot on the earth there have been an estimated 40,000,000+ miracles.

I come to the conclusion that you can't accurately calculate the number of miracles from the time of Genesis to the present. I believe that there is currently a growth of miracles taking place (especially in China at the moment). Is this number calculated for just the Catholic faith or for the whole of the Church? It's just I think that this number is rather small in ratio to the number of miracles which I have seen locally and I live in a very small country. Also you must consider the fact that God performs many spiritual wounds which can be counted as miracles as well. It has been reported from the house churches of China that 80% of Christians in the region are so in witness to miracles. At the time of me writing this there is well over 10 million Christians in the house churches and the current growth of the Church is 25,000 per day (taken from Mal Fletcher's book: The Pioneer Spirit, which can be purchased from Authentic).

Figures from the China house churches are quoted from the Back to Jerusalem web site http://www.backtojerusalem.com/

 * Well we know how many verified, proven miracles have occured in recorded history and that number is zero. The Catholic Church or you personally can assert as many as you want, but neither one of you has actually ever come up with any evidence SuperAtheist (talk) 12:37, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually there have been a dozen or so verified proven miracles over the years. By this I mean ones that stand up to all scientific scrutiny such as the Miracle of the Eucharist of Buenos Aries as well as many others. The miracle was verified by an atheist, who became a catholic afterwards. http://miraculousrosary.blogspot.com/2012/07/eucharistic-miracle-buenos-aires.html Watch the first video Super Atheist. You can argue about it all day if you wish, but that's just one of many confirmed miracles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ShadowHawk555 (talk • contribs) 22:02, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

40,000,000+ miracles
My opinion is that the "40mm miracles comment" should either be expanded or deleted The message below was posted to user Michael Hardy, who added the comment recently. Michael First of all, congratulations for working on so many good mathematics articles. I am writing however about the entry "miracle", which you edited on 24 Jan 2005 (quote from your comment: "I'm putting back some material that an anonymous editor put here earlier, purporting to present a Catholic view. This time it is so labeled and appropriately formatted for Wikipedia.") Among the comments added is the claim that 40 mm miracles are estimated to have happened, in the history of humankind. While I myself do not believe in miracles as a religious manifestation, I would be interested in knowing how this estimate has been arrived to. I actually think that the basis of this estimate are a required addition to the paragraph. I also believe that if such an estimate can not be described in some further detail and (as much as possible) in an unbiased way, then maybe that comment should be removed, having no sources or further detailed explanation. To clarify further: I am unbiased as to whether that comment should remain and be expanded, or should just be removed. However I am adamant that it should not remain unexpanded in its current state. I will post this same comment in the entry's talk page, hoping to receive some illuminating comments from fellow wikipedians. Regards, gintaras 23:28, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Request for sources: Catholic view of miracles
We definitely need official sources for the many claims made in the new section on Catholic views of miracles. Cite sources is one of our policies. For instance:

 * Anyone can perform a miracle if he or she adheres to the following points. Really?  Anyone can?
 * A Satan-assisted miracle is a temporary miracle that disguises itself as a genuine miracle....

I think this article lacks reference to the work of renowned contemporary theologians and philosophers who have tried to give a meaningful interpretation to miracles, which is, by the way, not affected by the critique by philosophers referred to on this page.

E.g.: the work of Karl Rahner or the views referred to by Bernard Sesboué in Croire, Invitation à la foi catholique pour les femmes et les hommes du xxie siècle, 1999 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.129.147.75 (talk) 20:11, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Catholic view of miracles
I'm not certain that this belongs as it is, but my editing of it is to reflect a need to be gramatical if it is retained. A source for the alledged number of miracles would be really nice! Rlquall 21:51, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes... The article now claims that the Vatican records some 12,756+ events that it regards as miracles. That number is just the Earth's equatorial diameter in kilometres. Of course it might be a coincidence, but in a discussion of miracles any coincidence sticks out like a sore thumb. So, what about those sources? —Herbee 23:57, 2005 May 29 (UTC)

Could we get info for what constitutes a miracle according to Catholic doctrine? -Tydaj 3 July 2005 19:03 (UTC)

 * More than you may be looking for is here. This does not provide a source for the above claimed number, however. Csernica 5 July 2005 19:36 (UTC)

I can find very little support for most of what this section has to say in any standard Catholic references. Whoever added it has not responded to repeated requests for sources, especially for his rather odd figure for the number of recorded miracles. If no one objects, I'm going to give it a drastic edit sometime soon. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:59, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Miracles in Africa
Can anybody elaborate on this?: "Within the Christian church in Africa miracles are still a frequent occurance." I don't have a problem with it in the article, but I guess I just wondered exactly what was meant by this. DJPthousand 19:07, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Pentecostal?
Why is this article in a Pentecostal category? Most Christian groups affirm the existence of ongoing miracles. We should either include this in categories for all of them individually if it's going to be in one; or just put it under Category:Christianity and not in any of the subcategories for each group, IMO. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:29, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

milk-drinking statues
''... Hindu statues reportedly drank milk on September 21, 1995. The story received world-wide coverage by television stations including CNN and BBC, newspapers such as the Washington post, New York Times, The Guardian and Daily Express, and radio...'' Sounds fascinating! Something this recent in such mainstream papers ought to be in their on-line archives. Can anyone find a specific link and add it to this page? --Keeves 19:20, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

 * Guardian's has been archived and is only mentioned in a story about a statue of mary bleeding now. Looking for the others. I added 3 refs: two of them mention these sources. KillerChihuahua?!? 19:26, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Also adding, this would be better in Modern miracles section, and I will move it there if and when I can find enough information on Hindu miracles to get more than one line, or when someone Hindu expands that section. KillerChihuahua?!? 19:28, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

 * there was hysteria for a day or 2 on the milk-drinking. It was quickly explained by capillary action and died down soon after that. Not many Hindus still consider that a miracle. I have removed that and expanded the section. I only tried to draw parallels to what is considered a miracle in Christianity, since the concept does not have the same significance in Hinduism. --Pranathi 23:09, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

 * I put that in, as I explained above, until a more knowledgable editor could make a contribution. I searched online and the darn milk thing was 99% of the returns, so I thought, well, it will do until we get some substance here.
 * Thanks again for adding that substance! KillerChihuahua?!? 00:34, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

 * I think the search didn't reveal much because the concept, though it exists in Hinduism, does not have the same significance as in other religions. Miracles are not talked of by themselves or as an illustration of a figure's authenticity. Thanks again for the alert.--Pranathi 01:02, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Physics
Quote:  "Modern physics, specifically dimensional physics, help to explain how events that seemingly defy reality can occur. These     transcendent miracles include events such as the virgin conception of Christ and his bodily resurrection." What? This needs some serious clarification and smells far too much like pure speculation and/or opionion to belong in an encyclopedia article. What scientist has ever linked superstring theory or whatever with MIRACLES in any serious way? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 141.151.80.30 (talk • contribs) 03:13, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Concur, removed unsourced possibly OR speculation. KillerChihuahua?!? 12:15, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Quote: "Another type of miracles are ones that seem to defy physics all together. Modern physics, specifically dimensional physics, help to explain how events that seemingly defy reality can occur." This is still nonsense, and in dire need of explanation/clarification/sources/examples, etc.

 * The section "transcendent and non-transcendent miracles" is bullcrap and must be destroyed. I, the anonymous editor, shall now do just that.

Hume Miracles Section
The section as currently written is

(a) far too long - perhaps this criticism deserves to be merged into the article 'Argument from Miracles'. If necessary there could even be an article on Hume's essay itself - it's quite well known.

(b) clearly POV. It begins by calling his analysis infamous for heaven's sake.

(c) Rather bad, IMO. I have only the non-specialists understanding of Hume's views on the subject of miracles, but this is egregiously awful. I suspect a college freshman posting his essay to the web... --Gargletheape 19:27, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Hume's views
Re DEFINITION. The definition that the article attributes to David Hume is very nice. It is, of course, not what Hume wrote in the chapter On Miracles but why should Wikipedia go directly to the source if such a nice formulation of what Hume might have said is available from another encyclopedia. Anyway, the main point is that by providing information on what Hume did not write, the subsection also in a way tells us something about the views that Hume did not hold, which was after all what it set out to do. Mission accomplished.--BZ(Bruno Zollinger) 08:56, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

 * Or you could, you know, like, fix it. TCC (talk) (contribs) 21:24, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Re FIX IT.  So what do you think I'm doing, TCC?--BZ(Bruno Zollinger) 08:46, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Being sarcastic on the talk page. Fixing it involves editing the actual article. TCC (talk) (contribs) 10:24, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

 * Re INVOLVED.  This may come as a surprise to you, TCC, but in Switzerland, where I come from, pointing out a method for solving a whole class of equations is considered worth much more than actually solving one of these equations.--BZ(Bruno Zollinger) 14:11, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

 * Re SARCASM.  Another surprise, TCC: In the Alps, sarcasm is not considered a crime. On the contrary, it is seen as the mark of every great writer. We can't all be great writers, of course, but we can pay our tribute to these giants by also using this tool now and then.--BZ(Bruno Zollinger) 14:11, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

 * You asked what I thought you were doing and I provided a straightforward answer. I never said sarcasm was a crime, it's just not helpful here. And this isn't mathematics, where discovering the method is 95% of the work. It's an encyclopedia, where nothing useful is done until and unless the article is edited. I don't know Hume well and I'm frankly not interested in him. You do and you are. Why you can do nothing but complain, and refuse to to the work yourself, I can't imagine. Had you simply edited the article, it would already be fixed. TCC (talk) (contribs) 19:22, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

 * And actually, I believe you'll find that great writers frequently use irony, not sarcasm. Irony is a forceful way of making a point. Sarcasm is merely insulting. You don't need to be a great writer to insult; any moron can manage it. TCC (talk) (contribs) 19:25, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

 * Re 95%.  Right. In an encyclopedia it's 99.99%.--BZ(Bruno Zollinger) 09:10, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

 * Re FIXED.  Right. 1 article out of a million would be fixed. Without anybody having learned anything.--BZ(Bruno Zollinger) 09:10, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

 * Re COMPLAIN.  Who's complaining, TCC?--BZ(Bruno Zollinger) 09:10, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

 * Re IRONY.  Right. But why should this be a proof that they don't use sarcasm as well? Show me one who doesn't!--BZ(Bruno Zollinger) 09:10, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

 * Re INSULT.  In the mountains, sarcasm is not considered an insult. Telling other people what to do and how to write, is. Well other countries, other customs, as we say in Switzerland.--BZ(Bruno Zollinger) 09:10, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

 * Re: 99.9% -- All right. So your mathematics comparison was even more inapposite than I said. I admit I deliberately underestimated it.

 * The million articles are not all wrong. A great many of them have no serious problems or inaccuracies to speak of, at least not more than a reputable print encyclopedia like the Britannica. Besides, why not fix those that are wrong? Of course since there will be less to complain about it would spoil some of your fun, but hey, you have another 999,999 articles to complain about. And nobody would have learned anything? That's absurd. Any reader of the article would have learned something. Now you're just being deliberately obtuse.

 * Complain? You are. I'm merely pointing out that complaining about a problem without doing anything about it, when doing something about it is perfectly within your power and indeed would have taken less effort than this discussion, is more useless than anything else. But perhaps doing useful things is not your purpose here.

 * Irony -- Yes, many great writers use sarcasm. It's a method of attack, not well-intended discourse. As many great writers have had occasion to intellectually attack someone, it's not surprising that they use it. Sarcasm is characterized as "biting". Irony is regarded as insightful. I suppose which is more admirable depends on the situation.

 * I live in mountains myself. You may be surprised to learn that they exist in places other than Switzerland. In these mountains sarcasm, especially the condescending variety you use here, is insulting. But now you're either being dishonest or are admitting to the charge. What was your initial sarcastic complaint about the article but an instruction to someone, anyone, to fix it? (I'm sure you might claim otherwise, but that would be highly disingenuous of you.) So you were being insulting at large, even by your own lights. TCC (talk) (contribs) 21:45, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

 * Re MOUNTAINS.  Well, TCC, thank goodness you explained to me what mountains you are coming from. Otherwise I might have taken offense at being called "deliberately obtuse", "condescending", "insulting at large", "highly disingenuous", "a moron", "dishonest", et cetera et cetera. But if in the American mountains this is taken to be civilized discourse, then that's fine with me. I only hope that you won't mind if I don't reply in the same way. In Switzerland we say: When in Rome, never forget you're a Swiss.--BZ(Bruno Zollinger) 08:27, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

 * Re SARCASM (cont.)  This morning it came to me in a flash: You, TCC, have never read the book that introduced sarcasm as a literary style to our civilization. I guess, like so many young people nowadays, you had the misfortune to be raised as a "free thinker". Had you ever read only one of the many beautiful verses in which the Bible uses sarcasm of the most explicit kind to make a point, you would have a very different opinion of it. But see for yourself. The book won't bite you, and you don't have to become a believer. Just give it a try. You will learn a lot. Not only about the uses of sarcasm but also about other things, such as intellectual pride and humility for instance. I wish you a very pleasant day, TCC.--BZ(Bruno Zollinger) 08:27, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

 * You are a very silly man. TCC (talk) (contribs) 03:33, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

 * Re SILLY.  Well, I assume this rates as an argument in the American mountains; and, no doubt, also in the back of the German woods. But let me show you what we in the Swiss mountains prefer: And it came to pass at noon, that Elijah mocked them, and said, Cry aloud: for he is a God; either he is talking, or he is pursuing, or he is in a journey, or peradventure he sleepeth, and must be awaked. Yes, you got it: SARCASM. The preferred way to talk to the prophets of Baal.--BZ(Bruno Zollinger) 08:54, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

 * I correct myself. You're a very silly man, and you still haven't done anything useful with the article. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:39, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

 * continued below>> Re CORRECT.

Re BELIEF OR OPINION. As mentioned above, a reader should be able to deduce Hume's views from the information given in the article. At least if he is an American. For the readers from Switzerland or other mountaineous regions, here is a short explanation of what Hume's essay is all about:

A man like David Hume would of course never have wasted his time discussing the kind of miracles mentioned in the article. Anyone willing to invest the 10 minutes that it takes to read On Miracles will see that Hume has something very different in mind: decisions that can only be "wrong". Nobody has ever seen a man raised from the dead (best case). Your best friend has never ever deceived you (best case). If this friend tells you he has just seen some Lazarus rising, should your belief or opinion be that he is right (miracle #1) or that he is wrong (miracle #2)? You can either be right for the wrong reason, or wrong for the right reason. Nobody (sorry, Mr Hume!) has ever come up with anything even approaching a satisfactory solution to this problem.--BZ(Bruno Zollinger) 08:46, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Re CORRECT. Nice correction, TCC. And so brilliantly argued. You feel that a silly man should do the work that, in your opinion, needs to be done. And not only a silly one but a VERY silly one at that. You want a very silly man to write articles for Wikipedia? That's what you want? - And they cried out aloud, and cut themselves after their manner with knives and lancets, till the blood gushed out upon them.--BZ(Bruno Zollinger) 12:34, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Contemporary
Followers of Sai Baba are sincere in their belief that he performs miracles. The dominant view outside the movement appears to be that this is simple conjuring. We can state the facts without appearing to form a judgment, I hope, and the same should be true of the others. That includes the section title: claims is neutral, fraud is not. Just zis Guy you know? 08:07, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * true. Some followers of Sathya Sai Baba continue to have faith even if they hear someone observing fraud or even when they personally observe fraud. Sathya Sai Baba himself gives various definitions of a miracle. One of his definitions is an event that attracts the attention because it cannot be explained. Andries 20:57, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Re DEFINITION. If he wants this definition to make any sense whatsoever, Sathya Sai Baba would have to specify who would be qualified to decide that an explanation is satisfactory or not. Does he, Andries?--BZ(Bruno Zollinger) 08:36, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup
Nothing wrong with content, but I think that the Christianity section contains more Judaism than the Judaism part. Needs attn. Flymeoutofhere 15:48, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Wicca,
Most Wiccans do not consider themselves as Satanic. Many of them belive in a God and a Goddess. Some of them even believe that these are forms of the God of Love and Loving Light, The Greatest Spirit of all Spirits, the Ultimate Conciousness, or The Source of Life, the Universe and Everything. Therefore any association done toward Satanism would most likely not be from anyone within the faith. Most often it is in Christian literature as such. But Wiccan literaure has a different view. However, I have found that far too often Wiccan literature does sometimes do just the opposite of what they intend to do. Yet, if you examine my viewpoint you will see that so do the Christian literatures. Their creed is "Harm none, and Do what you will so be it in love." By Critizing the Christians they have violated the principle, because judgemental criticism is harmful. Sometimes they are careful, and constructively criticize. Just like Christian Literature often violates the law "Judge not, lest ye be judged." These are principles that all men must learn. Even myself.

So basically Wiccans believe in anything.

Islamic view of miracles
I started correcting the English in this section because parts of it were not comprehensible to an English speaking reader but I don't have time right now to finish. There are also some NPOV problems which should be addressed. I think the many Quranic citations should be in a separate list, as they clutter up the article and make it less readable. Do feel free to discuss this. I don't want to step on anyone's toes, but would like to improve this section.Essaouira 22:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

A few biased points
I found this article to contain some bias in the way "god" was spelled. There were many cases where "God" was used in the place where "god" should have been. This is a minor edit, but it is very important. The use of "God" in many parts of the article are biased towards the god of the Christian religion, who is named "God". I fixed a few of the issues I found with this. Some of the parts should be left as "God" since that is what they are refering too. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.71.219.100 (talk) 04:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC).

The the first two paragraphs in the section for contemporary miracles seem to be more in the vein of recruitment brochures than encyclopedic entries - somebody want to have a look at that? I'm no expert, but I'm almost certain those don't belong.

Prophecizing?
I don't think that is a standard English word. I didn't edit, because I have no way of knowing what the intent of the author was here. Would someone like to standardize the word usage?

67.49.147.148 19:50, 22 March 2007 (UTC)Leif Palmer, 9:50 AM Hawaii time, March 22, 2007

What about prophesying? Gottistgut (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 07:53, 28 January 2009 (UTC).

I added a new section
Here is what I wrote:

C.S. Lewis, Norman Geisler, William Lane Craig, and Christians who engage in jurisprudence Christian apologetics have argued that miracles are reasonable and plausible. . —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.205.115.88 (talk) 01:55, 15 April 2007 (UTC).

Removed some of the less encyclopaedic elements at the end of 'In the New Testament'. Not sure that any of it is really NPOV, mind. 81.107.32.231 (talk) 14:05, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Looking for translations
I am looking for language translations of the word Miracle. Preferably Swahili or Hawaii Translations. I am currently pregnant with the baby they said I would never have. Of course, Miracle is fine for a girl but not for a boy. I really need some help. Even if it's just pointing me in the direction of help. (Marvalla (talk) 07:17, 31 March 2008 (UTC))

Better definitions and interpretations
Certainly there are several different viewpoints of what consitutes a miracle and how people interpret stories about them. This is not covered well now and needs expansion. Rlsheehan (talk) 02:29, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

World VIew
This article needs to discuss more views of miracles other than just the European Christian view.Bless sins (talk) 21:12, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Current Standards and Practices in Declaring Miracles for Sainthood
The current standards and practices of the Catholic church in declaring miracles as evidence for sainthood are being documented at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Father_Damien There have been some surprising revelations there recently. Lawn Chair Charlie (talk) 21:37, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * How silly for any humans to try to declare what is a miracle and what is not. Leave that to God.  Rlsheehan (talk) 16:11, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

 * The Damien case reveals the standards to be very low or nonexistent. Mother Inferior (talk) 16:19, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Amen, Rlsheehan! In the Sainthood system, the miracle requirement shouldn't be there, in my opinion, because who has the right to judge a miracle aside from God and the person who claimed to recieve the miracle? I was reading up on Mother Teresa (big fan of her commitment to modern medicine and healing regardless of cash), and it said that she could only recieve Sainthood if she was attributed to two miracles.

I was reading that and thinking, "What in the universe?!". More importantly, the Blessed title was given because a portrait of her shined a light (*cough* reflection *cough*) on an ailing cancerous victim and eradicated her tumor. First off, God works miracles through secular means nowadays.

That tumor cure was probably the result of Mother Teresa's medical staff, the medicine, ect., something that she did or administered! It was at her hands and the hands of her staff that medicine was done, but shouldn't that be the miracle instead of a reflection from a potrait? Honestly, get your priorities right! I consider Mother Teresa's medical trek and various curings and assistents of the sick in need as a miracle, not some reflection.

As said in the article, miraculous occurences are things with little to no chance coming true, and to the religious, something that God helped. Jesus and the Apostles of the Bible are the last folks I can think of who did literal miracles (ressurection of Lazarus, water-to-wine, demon removal, Jesus Himself, Virgin Mary, Paul, ect.). The miracles of now are God's plan doing unbelivable things through non-divine measures. I consider miracles thing such as people with terminal illnesses surviving, those pronounced dead actually in comas and living on, premature infants surviving the odds, quadapalegics who eventually walk due to therapy... I've actually seen two of those firsthand.

A reflection shining on an ailing paitent? Not a miracle. Mother Teresa helping to eradicate that cancer? THAT'S a miracle.

By the current canonization standards, Billy Graham couldn't become a Saint (despite bringing TENS OF THOUSANDS TO CHRIST) because he didn't do a so-called "miracle". Isn't leading tens of thousands of people to Christ miraculous enough for the process? Nooooooooo. Quickly, get me a picture of Billy Graham!

Wikipedia's not a forum, so I'll shut up now.

--TurtleShroom! :) I like turtles. THE TURTLE'S OVER NINE THOUSAND! Madness? NO, THIS IS GOOMBA! 17:24, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Natural Possibilities
Some events in the Hebrew and Christian scriptures can only be described as miracles but others might be open to natural explanations. The creation miracles described in the first two chapters of Genesis can only be accepted through subjective belief. They cannot be proven objectively by any means.

The parting of the Reed Sea described in Exodus, however, could have been a tsunami event. In a tsunami the sea typically recedes slowly from the shore and then comes roaring back in a wave or series of waves many meters high. This is what's described in Exodus. Couple this with the comment that the Israelites were led by a pillar of smoke by day and a pillar of fire by night, which could be a description of a volcano. Volcanoes and tsunamis are quite often linked. If the Israelites could have seen the Thera eruption from Egypt, the Exodus would have occurred ca. 1628 BCE. This doesn't denigrate God's involvement in the events of the Exodus but might help to establish the historicity of these events.

Mary's virgin pregnancy could have been a manifestation of, say, parthenogenesis in humans. Some vertebrates (e.g., amphibians and reptiles) reproduce asexually through the mechanism of parthenogenesis. Our genome could still contain the code for this but its occurrence would be exceedingly rare. The probability might be 1 in a trillon, say, but still finite. This hypothesis would be difficult indeed to prove but would have major ramifications for Marian theology if it were.

The resurrection of Jesus is more problematical. Based on the Gospel accounts, Jesus was dead when removed from the cross. The spear thrust into his side rules out the possibility of lapse into coma. Nevertheless, something happened that had a profound effect on his disciples that ultimately produced the Christian religion. Virgil H. Soule (talk) 01:17, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Except most of the things you just mentioned (the exodus, the resurrection of Jesus, virgin birth, etc) have no evidence to support that they happened, so why would there be a need to make an ad hoc explanation for them? SuperAtheist (talk) 13:51, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Reference to Calanda
Hi, I inserted two short sentences and a reference about an event known as the miracle of Calanda under the section "Catholic Church claims", but this keeps getting deleted after a short time. Why is that? Guardaiinalto —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.127.151.98 (talk) 20:29, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Opposite
What is the opposite of a miracle? Erudecorp ? * 10:35, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

 * maybe Murphy's law ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.46.45.232 (talk) 15:03, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I changed a bit
Hi, I found the bit about Christian miracles far too liberal to be "of neutral viewpoint" (neutral stance being of wikipedia's policy), therefore I added a little bit of Bible and "fundamentalism" to balance it out.... We can't exactly have a whole article on miracles criticizing miracles and call it "neutral", can we? Gottistgut (talk) 07:57, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

 * As long as it is clearly labeled Fundamentalist, there is nothing wrong with that. Erudecorp ? * 03:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Jewish miracles section
why is this empty?Robotpandazombie (talk) 00:16, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Quantum Miracles may need to be added
Of all the strange features of the universe, none are stranger than these: time is transcended, laws are mutable, and observer participancy matters. ~ John Wheeler (born: 1911-12-09 died: 2008-04-13 at age: 96) Professor of Physics, Princeton University

Also when Einstein was working on his Superstring theory he interviewed a RC Priest at Princeton regarding transubstantiation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.175.76.65 (talk) 02:15, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Word "miracle" in bold
Why should the word 'miracle' be in bold in the text (especially in the "Dismissal, Disbelief and Skepticism" section)? From my perspective, it provides an special emphasis on it, which is not justifiable in terms of neutrality. Also noted in the section 'Philosophers' explanations of miracles': "human God's" is also in bold. Flapointe (talk) 15:57, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Statistics?
To further add to the neutrality of this article, it would be useful to provide some statistical data for miracles, especially those mentioned here - how many 'true' miracles have occured since humans have been able to research/document such law-of-nature-defying phenomena? What is the scientific consensus on the matter? Cheers. THE PROMENADER  16:56, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The number of "true" miracles that have been verified to have happened is exactly zero.  Funny how God stopped making blantant appearences right around the time people started keeping good historical records.  SuperAtheist (talk) 13:53, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Lead section
The present lead paragraphs are poorly worded and contradictory. I suggest:
 * A miracle is an unexpected event attributed to divine intervention. Sometimes an event is also attributed (in part) to a miracle worker, saint, or religious leader. A  miracle is sometimes thought of as a perceptible interruption of the laws of nature.  Others suggest that God may work with the laws of nature to perform what we perceive as miracles. A miracle is often considered a fortuitous event: compare with an Act of God.
 * In casual usage, "miracle" may also refer to any statistically unlikely but beneficial event, (such as the survival of a natural disaster) or even which regarded as "wonderful" regardless of its likelihood, such as birth. Other miracles might be: survival of a terminal illness, escaping a life threatening situation or 'beating the odds.'

Comments? Citations and links can be added as needed. Grantmidnight (talk) 15:44, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I have made edits to the lead section with citations. Grantmidnight (talk) 18:31, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

List of Individuals
This listing of individuals is excessive. Manual of Style (lists) recommends not having lists like this. This section should be removed and the article tightened up. The article can link to appropriate individuals or existing WK lists. Rlsheehan (talk) 20:48, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree. Some of the individuals are important to mention somewhere in here, such as Jesus and Mohammad.  Others, such as Audrey Santo are of lesser importance.  Them  From  Space  22:21, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I have removed the excessive list but retained each of the links. Rlsheehan (talk) 19:31, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Can anyone provide reference for miracles of Swami Vivekananda? I could not find any thing online and yet he is in the list. Please clarify. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sreejithsasikumar (talk • contribs) 04:52, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Criticisms
59.167.172.206 (talk) 03:22, 30 October 2010 (UTC) AFAIK all the criticisms are by Americans, an effort should be made to balance this out, it is highly unlikely that in thousands of years America is the only notable country to have criticised miracles.

Dawkins and Occam's Razor
Doesn't it seem a little ridiculous to have a line about Richard Dawkins planting the Occam's Razor flag in this article, when Occam himself was a Friar? Occam considered a select amount of spiritual matters (which would have included select miracles, like the Resurrection) to be immune to his Razor. Occam's Razor can indeed be used to seperate false miracles from genuine ones, but to use it to remove the possibility of miracles altogether whould be a gross abuse of the way Occam intended it to be used. And furthermore, even if the community considers it a worthy addition to the article, it most definitely belongs in the criticism section. --Jesspiper (talk) 11:34, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes but a distinguished career in biology does not a religious expert make, you have to cut him some slack. It's only comic genius to those in the know, everyone else will just take it at face value. 78.149.140.249 (talk) 12:52, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I rarely cut ignorance of any kind slack, but at the very least I will be moving it to the criticism section where it belongs.--Jesspiper (talk) 09:08, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit to Hinduism section
The sentence leading into the Hinduism section of this article was an unverifiable, non-neutral, unsourced editorial that characterized Hindu miracles as "not superstition," was grammatically incorrect, and did not follow contain any information identifiably relevant to the subject except as pure speculation. As such, I have deleted it. 76.118.32.67 (talk) 00:22, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Division of Religious Views
I believe that because this article seeems to be bias toward some religions that there should be a seperate section for each belief about miracles. This would remove need for further minute changes to help reduce bias in certain sections. This would also provide a broader view to all aspects of what could be considered a miracle. In addition miracle can be used in common speech as an event which is not completely un explainable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.126.57.115 (talk) 03:14, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

List of individuals who are claimed to have performed miracles
I have removed 6 people from this list as their articles did not mention them having performed miracles. There could be more I just picked 6 at random! Theroadislong (talk) 17:10, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Other religions and miracles
Do other religions BESIDES Abrahamic faiths (Judaism, Christianity, Islam) contain miracles in their claims? Are the Abrahamic faiths the only religions worth mentioning? Buddhism is mentioned as well, but don't nearly ALL religions have miracles attributed to them? What makes the Abrahamic faiths so special? Where are the others, besides just the Abrahamic faiths and Buddhism? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.161.252.56 (talk) 23:22, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Lead sentence should say "beneficial"
Currently the lead starts with

 * A miracle is an event not ascribable to human power or the laws of nature and consequently attributed to a supernatural, especially divine, agency.[1] Such an event may be attributed to a miracle worker, saint, or religious leader. A miracle is sometimes thought of as a perceptible interruption of the laws of nature.

Since the entire rest of the article implies, and in at least one place says, that miracles are beneficial, I think that the opening sentence above should begin

 * A miracle is a beneficial event not ascribable....

Duoduoduo (talk) 13:49, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Examples
I'd like to add an Examples section, e.g. high temperature superconductors are not explicable by natural or scientific laws: "A sample of a cuprate superconductor (specifically BSCCO). The mechanism for superconductivity of these materials is unknown." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unsolved_problems_in_physics#Condensed_matter_physics. Or does anyone think high temperature superconductors are not miracles? Then the definition of miracles is flawed. Darsie42 (talk) 01:19, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

More reference re place of HOPE/Prayer in Miricles?
Did't notice any referance to hope /prayer in miricles? Thanks! Eddson storms (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:17, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

"Miracle" the word
The word miraculum is a Latin word. It appears in the Vulgate from the late 4th century. In the earliest Greek texts of the New Testament the word terata is used. This means "wonder", not miracle. A wonder brings about a feeling of surprise mingled with admiration, caused by something beautiful, unexpected, unfamiliar, or inexplicable. Admiring the stars at night can cause a feeling of wonder or surprise, not necessarily miracle. Watching an ant can bring about wonder. In Hebrew the word נֵס (nes) today means miracle, but its meaning in Biblical Hebrew is a symbol of victory held high for all to see. The term "supernatural" is not used till about 1520-1530. I suggest reading: The New Ambidextrous Universe: Symmetry and Asymmetry from Mirror Reflections to Superstrings by Martin Gardner, Revised Third edition, 1990 Miistermagico (talk) 23:18, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Miracle. 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/20100606165846/http://www.stolaf.edu/collections/kierkegaard/newsletters/Newsletter43.pdf to http://www.stolaf.edu/collections/kierkegaard/newsletters/Newsletter43.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110128052924/http://vailankannishrine.org/miracle.php to http://www.vailankannishrine.org/miracle.php

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) 23:56, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Sun and Earth upper cased if they refer to the astronomical bodies
I had upper cased Sun and Earth in the following sentence, which was reverted: "...witnessed the sun dim, change colors, spin, dance about in the sky, and appear to plummet to earth." Not capitalizing 'earth' seems fine even though arguably it would have a case, and thanks for catching that. The word 'Sun' in the sentence, however, should be capitalized, as it does not refer only to sunlight (dim, change colors) but the actual star seen to '...spin, dance about in the sky, and appear to plummet...'. So, earth, no, Sun, yes? Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:16, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Beneficial: a human conclusion
A miracle or "good luck" is a human conclusion reached a AFTER a beneficial event has occurred. An example is a single child surviving a catastrophic plane crash where the "miracle child" was the only survivor. Miistermagico (talk) 23:26, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

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

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Bookku (talk) 05:27, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Saint Tammany Miracle
Hi, this edit should be looked into and truly considered. It's already in political discussion amongst the United States Government/Politicians, Native American chiefs, world leaders, and will be a mainstream recognized miracle within the next few years. Religion here seems to have become more Political than its original objective, a common spiritual worldview, denied to none. Religions are all pointing in the same directions, yet with different words, names, and honored people. The truth is, there really is something, but it is beyond our possible understanding. Saint Tammany and Matthew Edward Hall's miracle is revealing a truly all knowing, all powerful God/Higher Order, or even in the deist Christian view, preset with clues in the grand design. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roger44223 (talk • contribs)

 * This edit consists of nothing more than bold claims about a miracle by "Matthew Edward Hall" and using his own websites as references. These are not reliable sources. The other claims about a prophecy by Gurdjieff consists of original research and WP:SYNTH by making claims not explicitly made by the references. Those references consist of a Goodreads page and some usergenerated quote sites. The goodreads "quote" is fake as a search of the actual book contents will show. This whole addition is an unreferenced hoax and doesn't belong in a Wikipedia article. Notfrompedro (talk) 15:24, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Angels
even if there are no cited sources, we can add that angels of God or of Satan can do miracles. Demons don't act freely and for the good of people, but want to be worshiped in place of God and for a deal with the Devil which would ensure ethernal damnation of the human body and soul. Demons act by hand of a false prophet or witch, as it is explained in the film titled The Unholy. 151.18.1.138 (talk) 17:16, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Miracle


text:
Karl Muck

Karl Muck (October 22, 1859 – March 3, 1940) was a Hessian-born conductor of classical music. He based his activities principally in Europe and mostly in opera. His American career comprised two stints at the Boston Symphony Orchestra (BSO). Muck endured a trial by media in 1917, after Providence Journal editor John R. Rathom falsely accused him of knowingly refusing a request to have the BSO play the Star Spangled Banner following American entry into World War I. Although Muck was a citizen of neutral Switzerland, he was arrested based on Rathom's accusation and incarcerated as an enemy alien at Fort Oglethorpe, a German-American internment camp in Georgia from March 1918 until August 1919. Karl Muck and his wife were then deported from the United States. His later career included notable engagements in Hamburg and at the Bayreuth Festival.

Early life and career
Karl Muck was born in Darmstadt, which was then the capital of the Grand Duchy of Hesse, in modern Germany. Muck's father, a senior court official and amateur musician, moved the family to Switzerland in 1867 and acquired Swiss citizenship. Karl Muck acquired Swiss citizenship when he was 21. Muck studied piano as a child and made his first public appearance at the age of 11 when he gave a piano solo at a chamber music recital. He also played the violin in a local symphony orchestra as a boy. He graduated from the gymnasium at Würzburg and entered the University of Heidelberg at 16. In May 1878 he entered the University of Leipzig, where he took his degree as Doctor of Philosophy in 1880. While there studied music at Leipzig Conservatory. He made his formal debut as a concert pianist on February 19, 1880, at the Leipzig Gewandhaus in Xaver Scharwenka's Piano Concerto No. 1 in B-flat minor with Arthur Nikisch conducting.

He began his conducting career in comparatively minor provincial cities, starting in 1880 as Second Conductor (Zweiter Kapellmeister) in Zurich (Aktientheater), moving to Salzburg (k.k. Theater) in October 1881 as Principal Conductor (Erster Kapellmeister), where he served until April 1882. He then held appointments in Brünn (Stadttheater: October 1882 to June 1883) and Graz (1884–1886), where he married 21-year-old Anita Portugall on February 3, 1887. His first position in a major musical center came in Prague as Principal Conductor at Angelo Neumann's Deutsches Landestheater, starting with a performance of Die Meistersinger on August 15, 1886, and ending in June 1892. He also conducted Neumann's traveling opera company, appearing at Berlin and in 1888–1889 conducting Wagner's Ring cycle in Moscow and St. Petersburg. He left Prague to become principal conductor in October 1892 of the Berlin Court Opera (Kgl. Oper — today the Berlin State Opera, where he was appointed Chief Musical Director (''Kgl. preußischer Generalmusikdirector'') on August 26, 1908. He remained in Berlin until 1912, conducting 1,071 performances of 103 operas. He also conducted the Royal Orchestra in concerts there.

He took other assignments during his tenure in Berlin. He was guest conductor at the Silesian music festivals in Goerlitz between 1894 and 1911. In May and June 1899 at London's Royal Opera House Covent Garden, he conducted Beethoven's Fidelio and several of Wagner's operas (Tannhäuser, Die Walküre, Die Meistersinger, Der fliegende Höllander and Tristan und Isolde). He devoted many summers to the Wagner Festival in Bayreuth where he became principal conductor in 1903, after serving as a musical assistant since 1892. He succeeded Hermann Levi as the conductor of Parsifal there. As war approached in the summer of 1914, Muck insisted on performing Parsifal on August 1, 1914, to close the Festival, which was not revived until 1924. Muck conducted Parsifal at all of the fourteen Bayreuth festivals held between 1901 and 1930, and also conducted Lohengrin there in 1909 and Die Meistersinger in 1925, becoming a close friend of the Wagner family. The American music critic Herbert Peyser (1886-1953) thought Muck's interpretation of Parsifal the greatest he had ever heard: "the only and ultimate Parsifal; the Parsifal in which every phrase was charged with infinities; the Parsifal which was neither of this age nor that age but of all time." He led the Vienna Philharmonic from 1903 to 1906 and the Boston Symphony Orchestra from 1906 to 1918, and took visiting assignments in other cities, including Paris, Madrid, Copenhagen, Brussels.

Muck was offered the Metropolitan Opera House podium in New York at a reputed $27,000 a year, but declined. From 1903 to 1906 he alternated with Felix Mottl as conductor of the Vienna Philharmonic. At the Panama-Pacific International Exhibition held in San Francisco May 14–26, 1915, Muck conducted the Boston Symphony Orchestra in 13 concerts of music of all nations.

Conducting
Solo performers praised his work with them. Artur Schnabel called Muck: "a very great master, whose reliability, maturity and selfless dedication are not equaled by any living artist." Paderewski called him "an ideal accompanist". In physical terms, his conducting style required minimal movement, only small gestures with the tip of his baton. In areas of interpretation he was one of the first modernists. Though old enough to be part of generation known for taking liberties with the score and indulging in flexible tempos, he was by contrast disciplined and direct, less concerned with placing his personal stamp on a score than on demonstrating fidelity to the score and ceding a certain interpretative anonymity. By contrast with his conducting style, orchestra players found him impatient, explosive, nervous, and impulsive. He showed no casual or relaxed side of himself at concerts, rather "he dominated the orchestra and the audience and the occasion." The Austrian conductor Karl Böhm said in a 1972 interview: "Karl Muck by chance heard me direct Lohengrin, and he invited me to study all Wagner's scores with him. He was the first and greatest influence on me ... Muck told me where the orchestra should be more prominent, how to handle the Bayreuth acoustics, and so on."

Boston, 1906–1918
Muck served as music director of the Boston Symphony Orchestra (BSO) from 1906 to 1908 and then again from 1912 to 1918 (with a yearly salary of 28,000 dollars as the New York Times reported on March 26, 1918). Initially he had to work to expand his repertoire from the operas and German music he concentrated on in Europe. Olin Downes later wrote that "his repertory was unequal to the demands of his audience" so he relied on members of the BSO for coaching in French works. Contemporary works were not his strong suit, though he dutifully programmed music that was not to his own taste, such as the American premiere of Schoenberg's Five Pieces for Orchestra. He also introduced some Sibelius symphonies and many works of Debussy to Boston. Despite his restrained style, he occasionally revealed his romantic side in a work like Liszt's Faust Symphony. On his death the New York Times said that in Boston "he built a virtuoso orchestra."

Why he chose to work in America is unknown. In Berlin he was on close personal terms with Kaiser Wilhelm, but American gossip held that he preferred his freedom and for that reason refused the post of director of the royal opera in Munich in 1911. His life in Boston appeared unremarkable and he guest conducted at the Bayreuth Festival as the conductor of the BSO. Phi Mu Alpha Sinfonia music fraternity made him an honorary member in 1916 and he judged a piano competition in the spring of 1917. On October 2–5, 1917, he led the BSO in historic recordings for the Victor Talking Machine Company in Camden, New Jersey. The sessions included works by Tchaikovsky, Wolf-Ferrari, Berlioz, Beethoven, and Wagner.

Philip Hale, music critic of the Boston Herald during Muck's years there, wrote: "He stands there calm, undemonstrative, graceful, elegant, aristocratic; a man of singularly commanding and magnetic personality even in repose. The orchestra is his speech, the expression of the composer's music as it appeals to the conductor's brain, heart and soul."

National Anthem controversy
After American entry into World War I in the spring of 1917, Muck offered to resign his position as music director of the BSO. He anticipated that his natural sympathies for Germany, where he was born and spent most of his career despite his Swiss citizenship, might give offense. Henry Lee Higginson, the orchestra's founder and financer, declined it and instead signed Muck to another five-year contract. Muck had fears for his own safety, but Higginson gave him assurances that as an apolitical artist he had nothing to fear. Even so, Muck became very sensitive to avoid giving offense. The orchestra's publicity manager later wrote: "A good and patriotic German, he had become greatly attached to this country, and altogether he was a thoroughly unhappy man." Nevertheless, he continued his former practice and programmed concerts of Classical music only by German and Austro-Hungarian composers on his first tour of American cities following U.S. entry into the war, which some found not at all sensitive to the public's mood in wartime.

In the fall of 1917, some orchestras like the New York Orchestra Society started performing "The Star-Spangled Banner" at all their concerts. Members of the BSO management team discussed programming the anthem for weeks, but without any sense of the issue's importance. Moreover, the orchestra's manager, Charles A. Ellis, did not want to embarrass Muck by asking him to conduct the anthem, particularly given Muck's close attachment to his birthplace and his past personal friendship with the last Kaiser.

The BSO performed regularly at Infantry Hall in Providence, Rhode Island, where John R. Rathom, the unscrupulous and openly Pro-British editor of the Providence Journal had been attacking Muck for his past ties to the last Kaiser. The BSO's managers anticipated there might be trouble during their October 1917 visit. One member of the management team later said that Major Higginson, the BSO's chairman, was "pugnacious" while Ellis, the manager, was "rather nervous" as they joined the orchestra on the trip. Higginson took measures to protect Muck's safety in the case of serious trouble.

On October 30, 1917, the day of the concert, the Providence Journal published an editorial that said "Professor Muck is a man of notoriously pro-German affiliations and the programme as announced is almost entirely German in character." Rathom also demanded that the BSO to perform the National Anthem that night "to put Professor Muck to the test." About to leave Boston for Providence, Higginson and Ellis received two requests, one from a local patriotic organization and another from the heads of local music clubs, asking the BSO to play the anthem. Muck never saw the request, but Higginson and others viewed it as the work of John R. Rathom, editor and publisher of the Providence Journal, whose motto was "Raise hell and sell newspapers." They dismissed the request without much consideration and the concert went off without incident. Muck only learned of the petition on the orchestra's train ride back to Boston that same night. Shocked and somewhat fearful, he said he did not object to playing the anthem, that it was fitting for him as a guest in America to accommodate the wishes of his host country.

Now that the BSO had failed to play the anthem, Rathom created the false narrative that Muck had known of the request and had refused to perform it, accused Muck of treason (sic) and called him a German spy and a hater of all things American.

Similarly to Rathom's many other fake news publicity stunts, the Muck story instantly took on a life of its own. As the orchestra publicity manager wrote years later of Muck, "his fate, so far as America was concerned, was settled that night in Providence because of the short-sighted stubbornness of Henry L. Higginson and Charles A. Ellis." The American Defense Society demanded Muck's immediate arrest and internment. The Orchestra found its November Baltimore engagement canceled, with even Cardinal Gibbons adding his voice to denunciations of Muck.

Just as he had following the 1891 New Orleans lynchings, former U.S. President Theodore Roosevelt took fake news in print at face value and also publicly denounced the maestro. Rival conductor Walter Damrosch, the music director of the New York Symphony Society (later the New York Philharmonic), also denounced Muck's "cynical disregard of the sanctity of our national air", which Damrosch alleged showed disrespect for the emotions of his audience and led to a disrespect for the great heritage of German music.

Meanwhile, Major Higginson claimed responsibility for the BSO's initial failure to play the anthem, with little effect on the outrage stirred by the now nationwide press coverage. He visited the Washington, D.C. headquarters of the Department of Justice and received assurances that the government had no issue with any member of the orchestra. He tried to present the issue as one of artistic freedom, saying he would rather disband the orchestra than allow anyone to dictate its programming for political reasons. Muck took a similarly apolitical artistic stance with the statement: "Art is a thing by itself, and not related to any particular nation or group. Therefore, it would be a gross mistake, a violation of artistic taste and principles for such an organization as ours to play patriotic airs. Does the public think that the Symphony Orchestra is a military band or a ballroom orchestra?"

Back in Boston, the BSO found curiosity and support. On November 2, 1917, the crowd that filled a Friday afternoon concert at Symphony Hall read a program insert announcing that the national anthem would follow every BSO concert and applauded when Higginson appeared. Higginson announced that Muck had once again tendered his resignation so that "no prejudice against him may prejudice the welfare of the orchestra" and Higginson had yet to accept it. The audience then greeted the entry of Muck with a standing ovation and rose to applaud again after he led the orchestra in a performance of "The Star-Spangled Banner".

The New York Times pointed out that the entire affair could have been avoided if Higginson and Muck had had a better sense of the public sentiment. They should have anticipated the request for the anthem and should have programmed it in the first place. The paper blamed the entire affair on Muck and "the then obstinate management of the Boston Symphony Orchestra."

In November, the BSO performed in New York City, where at last Higginson and Ellis reluctantly gave in to Muck's insistence on playing the anthem. Critics were not completely satisfied and criticized the arrangement Muck used as "cheap" and "undignified" without realizing it was the work of Victor Herbert, who in addition to his popular Broadway operettas had also written serious symphonic works and conducted both the New York Philharmonic and the Pittsburgh Symphony. When the orchestra returned to New York in December, Muck used a new arrangement that proved a critical success. It was the work of BSO concertmaster Anton Witek, "the most pro-German of all the Germans in the orchestra."

Internment

Muck was arrested on March 25, 1918, just before midnight and therefore the BSO's performances of Bach's Saint Matthew Passion on March 26 and April 2, which Muck had been preparing for months, had to be conducted by Ernst Schmidt. Government officials were free to ignore the fact that he was a citizen of neutral Switzerland and the bearer of a Swiss passport, since the law sanctioned the arrest of those born in any of the German States before the 1871 founding of the German Empire without respect to citizenship. Boston police and federal agents also searched Muck's home at 50 Fenway and removed personal papers and scores. They suspected the conductor's markings in the score of the St. Matthew Passion were coded messages proving that Muck was a German spy. As part of German-American internment, he was imprisoned at Fort Oglethorpe, Georgia. The Phi Mu Alpha Sinfonia music fraternity that had elected him to national honorary membership in 1916 expelled Muck in 1919 for allegedly sympathizing with the Central Powers.

Fellow internees had heard that Muck had decided in protest to never conduct in America again, but they persuaded him that the camp was more of a German village — which was facetiously dubbed "Orglesdorf." A memoir of the event written in 1940 recalled the mess hall packed with 2000 internees, with honored guests like their doctors and government censors on the front benches, facing 100 musicians. Under Muck's baton, he wrote, "the Eroica rushed at us and carried us far away and above war and worry and barbed wire."

On August 21, 1919, an agent of the U.S. Department of Justice put Muck and his wife aboard a ship bound for Copenhagen. Before sailing from New York Harbor, Muck told reporters: "I am not a German, although they said I was. I considered myself an American." He admitted, however, to having "bitter feelings" toward certain American newspapers over their biased and inaccurate treatment of him. He also expressed doubts that the BSO, which was in a sorry state of organization, would ever recover after the similar internment of 29 of its best musicians.

Meanwhile, the American media's smear campaign continued. Later that year the Boston Post alleged that Muck had been having an extramarital affair with soprano Rosamond Young, a 20-year-old in Boston's Back Bay and had written her a letter reading in part: "I am on my way to the concert hall to entertain the crowds of dogs and swine who think that because they pay the entrance fee they have the right to dictate to me my selections. I hate to play for this rabble ... [In] a very short time our gracious Kaiser will smile on my request and recall me to Berlin ... Our Kaiser will be prevailed upon to see the benefit to the Fatherland of my obtaining a divorce and making you my own."

After his deportation, Karl Muck declined all subsequent invitations to return to the United States.

Later career, 1919–1933
Muck returned to a different Germany. The recent German Revolution of 1918–1919 made him "a man in marked disfavor with the republican government." The death of his beloved wife Anita on April 14, 1921, left him "infinitely lonesome". Muck eventually took the helm of the Hamburg Philharmonic Orchestra in 1922 and made additional recordings. He returned to Bayreuth when the festival was revived there in 1924, the representative of the pre-war tradition. He expressed his devotion to the Festival and Wagner's music in a letter advising Fritz Busch that all he needed to succeed there was "the unassuming humility and the holy fanaticism of the Believer." He was also engaged in Munich, Amsterdam (Concertgebouw Orchestra) and Salzburg (Don Giovanni in 1925).

In September 1930, he resigned his position at Bayreuth, much to the distress of Winifred Wagner, who had just succeeded her late husband Siegfried Wagner as the Festival's director. He never accommodated himself to being upstaged by Toscanini, but writing privately to Winifred Wagner, he said he had been committed to serving her husband, but the Festival now required someone other than "I, whose artistic standpoint and convictions, so far as Baireuth [sic] is concerned, stem from the preceding century." Muck also resigned his Hamburg position in 1933, as censorship in Nazi Germany began to affect the performance of Classical music in ideological ways that made Muck deeply uncomfortable.

His last noteworthy appearance came in February 1933 at a concert marking the 50th anniversary of Wagner's death, given at Leipzig and with Adolf Hitler among those in attendance. His final concert was on May 19, 1933, with the Hamburg Philharmonic. In October 1939, Muck "on his 80th birthday in Berlin received from Adolf Hitler the Plaque of the German Eagle" with the inscription DEM GROSSEN DIRIGENTEN (TO THE GREAT CONDUCTOR).

A widower since 1921, whose only child, a son, had died young, Muck spent his last years at the Stuttgart home of Baroness von Scholley, the daughter of his close friend and fellow Fort Oglethorpe internee, who had served the German Foreign Office as Consul General in New York City. Partially paralyzed from nicotine poisoning and immersing himself in Oriental philosophy, he rarely left the house during the last three years of his life. Muck died in Stuttgart, Germany on March 3, 1940, at the age of 80. Upon receipt of the news of his death, the BSO interrupted a rehearsal to stand in silent tribute to his memory. Geraldine Farrar wrote a letter to the New York Times recalling that she sang with him and the Boston Symphony on the night when Muck was "bitterly and unjustly assailed" for not playing the National Anthem and adding: "As your editorial correctly reports, he knew nothing of the request." She continued: "The fortunes of war brought Dr. Muck — as well as other aliens — no disgrace in an internment camp. I saw Dr. Muck several times in later years and I know he counted the years with the Boston Symphony Orchestra among the happiest and most fruitful of his career."

Recordings
Muck's reputation rests largely on his recorded legacy. In October 1917 he made a series of sound recordings in the US with the Boston Symphony Orchestra for the Victor Talking Machine Company in their Camden, New Jersey auditorium. Unusually for the time (when the pre-electric purely mechanical “acoustic” process was in use) the orchestra seems to have been recorded at full strength as the 1919 Victor catalogue refers to "approximately a hundred men". Eight short pieces spread over ten 78 r.p.m. sides were selected, including excerpts from Beethoven's Symphony No. 7, Tchaikovsky's Symphony No. 4 and two items from Berlioz's Damnation of Faust.

Muck's most important recordings were made at the 1927 Bayreuth Festival for the English Columbia Gramophone Company and in 1927 to 1929 in Berlin for the Gramophone Company (HMV). At Bayreuth sometime between late June and mid-August 1927, he conducted about 30 minutes of excerpts from Parsifal Acts 1 and 2. His control of phrasing in the Transformation and Grail scenes is regarded as unsurpassed to this day. In December 1927 he led the Berlin State Opera Orchestra in an account of the opera's Prelude, one of the slowest on record. A year later, in December 1928, he made a nearly complete recording of the third act of Parsifal, using the Parsifal and Gurnemanz singers from that year's Bayreuth performances. The music critic Alan Blyth described this as "the most uplifting, superbly executed reading of Act 3 ... in the history of recording" and Robin Holloway commented that "It realizes better than any other Wagner performance the idea of endless melody". In all about 40% of the opera's score was recorded over the $2 1/2$-year period. HMV also recorded eight further Wagner orchestral pieces, including the Siegfried Idyll, with the Berlin State Opera Orchestra in December 1927, May 1928, and November 1929. These have been reissued on various CDs.

A discography of Muck's original commercial recordings, not including reissues, appeared in 1977.

Several radio recordings allegedly conducted by Muck also exist, including a Faust Overture and Trauermarsch (Götterdämmerung) with the Berlin Radio Symphony Orchestra and an excerpt from the Adagio of Bruckner's Symphony No. 7 with the Hamburg Philharmonic.

Cultural depictions

 * In Maria Peters' 2018 film De Dirigent (The Conductor - 2018), a biopic about Antonia Brico, Muck's student from 1927 to 1932 and the first internationally recognized female conductor of Classical music, Karl Muck was played by German actor Richard Sammel.

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

title: Karl Muck


text:
Lambuth University

Lambuth University was a private Methodist university in Jackson, Tennessee. It was active from 1843 to 2011 and was supported by the Memphis Annual Conference of the United Methodist Church. The university began as the Memphis Conference Female Institute in 1843 and was later renamed in honor of Walter Russell Lambuth (1854–1921), a Methodist missionary who traveled globally.

After several years of financial struggles, the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools opted not to renew Lambuth's accreditation in 2011. Due to both the financial and accreditation problems, the Board of Trustees voted in April 2011 to cease operations two months later. Final commencement exercises were held April 30, 2011. The University of Memphis acquired the campus which is now the Lambuth branch campus of the University of Memphis.

Athletics
The Lambuth athletic teams were called the Eagles. They participated in dual membership with both the National Association of Intercollegiate Athletics (NAIA) and the NCAA Division II ranks, primarily competing as an NAIA Independent within the Association of Independent Institutions (AII) and an NCAA D-II Independent in transition as a provisional member from 2008–09 to 2010–11. The Eagles previously competed as full members for the TranSouth Athletic Conference (TranSouth or TSAC) from 2006–07 to 2007–08, and for the Mid-South Conference (MSC) from 1995–96 to 2005–06; both from the NAIA.

Lambuth competed in 11 intercollegiate sports: Men's sports included baseball, basketball, football, golf, soccer and tennis; while women's sports included basketball, golf, soccer, softball and tennis.

Notable alumni

 * Anthony Davis – Former Tennessee State Representative
 * Ron Dixon – player for the National Football League New York Giants
 * William M. Greathouse – President of Trevecca Nazarene University, President of Nazarene Theological Seminary; General Superintendent in the Church of the Nazarene
 * Ray King – Major League Baseball pitcher for 10 seasons.
 * Lee Hee-ho – First Lady of the Republic of Korea
 * Adriane Lenox – Tony Award-winning actress
 * James W. Moore – Methodist minister and author
 * Stefan Rodgers – offensive tackle for the Baltimore Ravens
 * Brett Scallions - Lead Singer of Fuel (band)
 * Tia Sillers – Grammy Award-winning song writer
 * Corey Webster – New Zealand basketball player

title: Lambuth University


text:
University of Prague

University of Prague (Universitas Pragensis) most often refers to:

 * Charles University, established in 1347 (named Charles-Ferdinand University between 1654 and 1920, in 1920 its Czech-speaking branch adopted the name Charles University, while the German-speaking branch was called German University in Prague and ceased to exist in 1945)

University of Prague may also refer to:
 * Czech Technical University in Prague, established in 1863
 * Czech University of Life Sciences Prague, established in 1906
 * Prague University of Economics and Business, established in 1919

title: University of Prague


text: Talk:University of Prague

title: Talk:University of Prague


text:
User:Kwydjibo

to be completed au fur et a mesure...

Table of contents

Introduction

Articles I wrote

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z

Articles I contributed

Links

title: User:Kwydjibo


text:
Category:Lincoln vehicles

This category is for automobiles sold under the Lincoln marque, a luxury car division of the Ford Motor Company.

title: Category:Lincoln vehicles


text:
User talk:AeroMorph

Hi, I saw your question on Help desk. Thanks for the offer. Whether or not to make a separate article depends on the length of the topic. For example, our article on MoveOn.org is so detailed that History of MoveOn.org got sent to a separate article; other articles keep it in one place. It's really a judgement call, and I think the best way is just to put it into the hang gliding article; someone else will fix it if it's too long.

On a more general note, welcome to Wikipedia! You might want to look at our Guide for Everything2 noders. You already know about the help desk; another good place to get help editing is Tutorial. And one final note--on discussion pages like this one, or the help desk, you can sign your name by using three tildes, like this:. Using 4 tildes adds a timestamp. Best wishes, [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 14:06, 2004 Jul 23 (UTC)

title: User talk:AeroMorph


text:
User:Finn-Zoltan

Does not exist.

see also: User:Finn-Zoltan-todos

title: User:Finn-Zoltan


text:
Halo: The Fall of Reach

Halo: The Fall of Reach is a military science fiction novel by Eric Nylund, set in the Halo universe, and acts as a prelude to Halo: Combat Evolved, the first game in the series. The book was released in October 2001 and is the first Halo novel. It takes place in the 26th century across several planets and locations. The novel details the events which led up to the game and explains the origins of the SPARTAN-II supersoldiers, narrating the story of the series protagonist, the Master Chief.

The Fall of Reach was conceived after Nylund had discussed the possibility of a Halo novel with Microsoft's Franchise Development Group. A "Halo Story Bible" was created to assist Nylund in keeping with Halo canon. The novel was written in seven weeks, Nylund's shortest writing deadline.

The book was well received by critics, who thought it added depth to the plot of the game, but the large number of characters was highlighted as a shortcoming. Going on to sell over one million copies, the success of The Fall of Reach paved the way for further Xbox game novelizations, including another book in the Halo series. William C. Dietz would write the next book, entitled Halo: The Flood. The book was adapted into a comic series entitled Halo: Fall of Reach, released in 2010. The book itself was re-released on December 7, 2010 after the comic book adaptation and contained new content as well as updating both editing mistakes and minor continuity errors. The novel was also adapted into an animated series that was streamed exclusively through the Halo Channel to coincide with the 2015 release of Halo 5: Guardians. It is also available through DVD and Blu-ray releases.

Background and writing
Eric Nylund had discussed the possibility of a Halo-related novel with Eric Trautmann, a member of Microsoft's Franchise Development Group, before Halo: Combat Evolved was developed, but it was postponed due to legal technicalities. Nylund thought positively of the delay as it "gave [him] a chance to see the game in almost every stage of development before [he] started writing." He wrote the book based on an outline approved by Bungie and the Halo Story Bible, a book containing all information on the characters and universe in which Halo takes place, so that his story would not conflict with other Halo publications. Nylund found it easier to write with the "Bible" available as the details of the universe he was writing in were already established, only minor alterations were made to fit the novel into the universe. A seven-week deadline was established for Nylund to write the book. According to Trautmann, the book was nearly canceled because Bungie was opposed to the idea of the Master Chief having a definite backstory. They eventually relented after Trautmann made them the offer that they let the book be completed and published in exchange for him, Matt Soell, and Brannon Boren completing Combat Evolved's script, which was still "80 percent" unfinished.

Setting and characters
The Fall of Reach takes place in the Halo universe and spans several decades, beginning in 2517 and describing events up to 2552. In the Halo universe, traveling faster than the speed of light is possible through slipspace, another dimension where special relativity does not apply. This has allowed humans to colonize hundreds of other planets which are controlled by the United Nations Space Command (UNSC). Feeling repressed by the UNSC's heavy-handed rule, some colonies revolt; fearing rebellion will tear the UNSC apart, military leaders approve the SPARTAN-II Program, a secret squad of super soldiers designed to quietly suppress rebellion.

The protagonist of The Fall of Reach is the Spartan soldier Master Chief. Dr. Catherine Halsey, the creator of the SPARTAN-II Project, is introduced alongside then-Lieutenant Jacob Keyes. Franklin Mendez is the trainer of the Spartan II and Spartan III programs, teaching them their physical combat skills while an AI named Déjà teaches them military history and strategy. Cortana, Master Chief's AI companion through much of the series, is also present as Dr. Halsey's aide in the lead-up to the Spartans' mission.

Plot
The novel opens with the civilian Dr. Catherine Halsey and Lieutenant Jacob Keyes traveling to meet John, a six-year-old boy. Dr. Halsey reveals to Keyes that John is one of 150 children who possess rare genetic markers making them suitable for conscription into the SPARTAN-II program, a secret experiment with the aim of creating super soldiers for the UNSC to quell rebellions. Seventy-five of the children are kidnapped by operatives of the Office of Naval Intelligence and replaced by clones engineered to die of natural causes shortly thereafter. From this point on, the recruits are known only by their first name and a three-digit number. John-117 and the rest of the children are drilled and trained by Franklin Mendez; John demonstrates leadership of his fellow Spartans, leading to his promotion to squad leader. In 2525, the Spartans undergo a series of surgical enhancements which turn them into highly efficient super soldiers - but more than half of the original 75 conscripts are paralyzed or killed. The Spartans are also equipped with powerful MJOLNIR battle armor, designed to respond as quickly as the soldier's thoughts. John-117 is further promoted to Master Chief Petty Officer. The Spartans are highly successful, but they experience a priority shift after a collective of alien races known as the Covenant begin obliterating human colonies, declaring humanity's destruction as the will of their gods. Mendez leaves the group to train the next generation of Spartans as John and his comrades first face the Covenant.

By 2552, the war against the Covenant is going poorly. The technological superiority of the Covenant means that space battles heavily favor the Covenant, and the UNSC can only win engagements by suffering tremendous losses. To prevent the discovery of Earth or other human colonies, Vice Admiral Cole creates the "Cole Protocol", which forbids direct slipspace jumps to Earth or any other population center, and mandates the destruction of a ship before it can be captured by the Covenant. Jacob Keyes, now commander of the destroyer Iroquois, discovers four Covenant ships arriving at the Sigma Octanus System, and single-handedly destroys two Covenant escort frigates and a destroyer in a feat dubbed the Keyes Loop, earning him the rank of captain. The Covenant land ground forces on Sigma Octanus IV, overtaking the primary population centre; Cote d'Azure, in search of an ancient artifact. Despite a costly fight, the humans manage to repel the Covenant, and the Iroquois intercepts a coded Covenant transmission from the surface before the Covenant retreat. The Iroquois heads to Reach, unwittingly bringing a Covenant tracking device with it.

Soon after, Keyes is given the command of the UNSC cruiser Pillar of Autumn for a secret mission: the Spartans are to capture one of the Covenant's religious leaders and barter a truce. Dr. Halsey also introduces John to the artificial intelligence Cortana, who would assist the Spartans by residing in their MJOLNIR armor. Before the mission can begin, however, Reach is attacked by a massive Covenant fleet. John and Cortana reach the Pillar of Autumn, but most of the other Spartans are presumed killed as the Covenant vitrify the surface of Reach, turning the landmasses into glass. Cortana initiates a slipspace course based on the ancient glyphs intercepted by the Covenant at Sigma Octanus; the course takes them to a massive ringworld known as Halo, setting the stage for the events of Halo: Combat Evolved.

Reception
Critical reaction to the book was positive, particularly regarding the depth the book added to the Halo universe. Reviewer Eric Qualls commented that "[it was] interesting to read and give[s] you a much greater understanding" of the universe. Qualls made a positive comparison to Robert A. Heinlein's Starship Troopers regarding the manner of story telling. GameCritics' Brad Gallaway also praised the back-story the book adds and the quality of the story. Fellow reviewer Gene Park noted the descriptions in the book went beyond what was presented in the game, calling them "vibrant and rousing." He also complimented the characters presented in the novel, saying they all "fit nicely into the Halo universe" but some times there were too many characters to remember. Sal Accardo of 3D Action Planet said of the book: "it isn’t going to win any Pulitzers anytime soon. It’s well written, and a solid page-turner, but it’s still basically an action movie presented in book form" but praised the gritty presentation of the Spartans. Don D'Ammasa of the Science Fiction Chronicle called the book "competently written", but stated the plot was "simpleminded".

Though the book originally sold very slowly, it became a Publishers Weekly bestseller. The Fall of Reach would go on to sell more than 100,000 copies by 2003 and a million copies by December 2009. The novel's success convinced Microsoft and Del Rey to pen a three-novel publishing contract for novels based on Xbox games, including another Halo novel. The next entry in the Halo novel franchise would be 2003's Halo: The Flood, written by William C. Dietz. The more human Chief seen in the novel led Bungie to tone down the character model in Halo 2 to make him less an exaggerated robot and more a real person inside a suit.

Stuart Beattie, the screenwriter of Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl, wrote a spec script for a Fall of Reach movie. Beattie, a Halo fan, wrote the script between other projects in the hope that someone would read it and agree to produce the film, but as of May 2008 there were no plans to do so.

In May 2010, Tor announced that the first three Halo novels (not originally published by Tor) would be rereleased with new content and cover art. The Fall of Reach was the first novel to be reissued, with a release date of August 2010.

Adaptations
Marvel Comics adapted the story into a three-part comic series entitled Halo: Fall of Reach, released September 2010. The book was later adapted into a 2015 3D animated miniseries. The series was produced by Sequence, a Vancouver-based animation studio, and released in conjunction with Halo 5: Guardians. The game Halo: Reach largely ignored the canon established in the book. The Paramount+ series loosely adapted the "Fall of Reach" storyline in season 2, with many differences as compared to the novel and Halo: Reach.

title: Halo: The Fall of Reach


text: User talk:128.84.198.211

title: User talk:128.84.198.211


text:
William Henry Flower

Sir William Henry Flower (30 November 1831 – 1 July 1899) was an English surgeon, museum curator  and comparative anatomist, who became a leading authority on mammals and especially on the primate brain. He supported Thomas Henry Huxley in an important controversy with Richard Owen about the human brain and eventually succeeded Owen as Director of the Natural History Museum in London.

Origins and early years
Born on 30 November 1831 in his father's house at Stratford-upon-Avon in Warwickshire, he was the second son of Edward Fordham Flower, founder of the town brewery, and his wife Celina Greaves (18041884), eldest daughter of John Greaves and his wife Mary Whitehead. His paternal grandfather Richard Flower had married Elizabeth Fordham and settled at Albion, Illinois, where his father grew up.

His uncles included the slate entrepreneur John Whitehead Greaves and William Pickering, Governor of Washington. His elder brother Charles Edward Flower ran the family brewery with the third brother Edgar Flower, while he chose a scientific career.

First taught at home by his mother, he went to a school in Edgbaston at the age 11 and then from age 13 to a Pestalozzian school at Worksop under a Swiss headmaster, Dr B. Heldenmaier. There were ten hours schooling each day which included, rare at that time, science. Already a collector of natural history objects, he was made curator of the school museum and for almost all the rest of his life was a museum curator of one kind or another.

He then attended University College, London, followed by the Middlesex Hospital, where he studied medicine and surgery. Graduating as an MB of London University in 1851, he won a gold medal in physiology and a silver in zoology and comparative anatomy. In 1852 he read his first paper before the Zoological Society of London, of which he was made a Fellow.

Medical career
Appointed a junior house surgeon at the Middlesex Hospital, after six months he was promoted to senior house surgeon and in 1854 passed the exam to become an MRCS (Member of the Royal College of Surgeons). Also in 1854 he became Curator of the Middlesex Hospital Museum.

However, with the outbreak of the Crimean War that year, he joined the British Army and was appointed as Assistant-Surgeon to the 63rd (West Suffolk) Regiment of Foot. Embarking at Cork in July 1854, they sailed for Constantinople and then on to the Crimea, landing at Kalamita Bay in August. Within four months, the regiment was reduced in strength by almost one half from cold, exposure, infectious disease and, lastly, enemy action. His own health broke down and he had to be invalided home, never fully recovering. In recognition of his services, he received from the hands of Queen Victoria the Crimea Medal with clasps for Alma, Inkerman, Balaclava, and Sebastopol. Later, he received the Turkish Crimean War medal as well.

When fit to work he returned to London, taking the diploma to become an FRCS (Fellow of the Royal College of Surgeons) in 1857 and joining the staff of the Middlesex Hospital as a Demonstrator in Anatomy. In 1858 he married, and during the next year became Assistant-Surgeon at the Middlesex, curator of the Anatomical Museum and also Lecturer on Comparative Anatomy. In his 1859 lecture to the Royal United Services Institute on practical surgery for naval and military officers, as a direct result of his Crimean experience he summarised the first aid knowledge needed by soldiers and sailors to help the wounded before a surgeon was available.

The evolution debate
In 1860, intellectual circles in London were alive with talk of evolution. Long interested in the wider sphere of natural history rather than just human physiology, he decided to move his career in that direction. A probable influence was Thomas Henry Huxley, also a comparative anatomist and Fullerian Professor at the Royal Institution at the time, and his first contact with Huxley came through the naval surgeon, zoologist, and palaeontologist George Busk.

With Huxley he became engaged in controversy with Richard Owen, who claimed that the human brain had unique structures not present in simians. Huxley had contradicted this at the British Association meeting at Oxford in 1860, which included a debate on evolution, and promised proof. He was among experts consulted by Huxley and gave demonstrations at Huxley's public lectures, using monkey brains rather than scarce ape brains. He published papers on the brains of four species of monkey, and at the 1862 meeting of the British Association in Cambridge, after Owen read a paper repeating his claims, stood up saying "I happen to have in my pocket a monkey's brain" and produced the object in question.

In the evolution debate he was among those who, like his wife's brother-in-law. the Reverend Professor Baden Powell, saw no threat to religious belief in accepting the theory. In 1883 he expounded his view in an address to the Church Congress in Reading under the title: "The bearing of science on religion".

Transfer to zoology
On the recommendation of Huxley and others, in 1862 he became Conservator of the Hunterian Museum of the Royal College of Surgeons of England, holding the post for 22 years, and in 1864 was elected a Fellow of the Royal Society.

In 1870 he became Hunterian Professor of Comparative Anatomy, in succession to Huxley, and began a series of lectures that ran for fourteen years, all on aspects of the Mammalia. The essence was published in his books of 1870 and 1891. He was elected President of the Zoological Society of London in 1879, holding the post for life, and in 1882 was awarded the Royal Medal of the Royal Society. From 1883 to 1885 he was President of the Anthropological Institute.

Natural History Museum
In 1884, on the retirement of Sir Richard Owen, he was appointed to the directorship of what were then the Natural History departments of the British Museum in South Kensington. The four departments of Zoology, Botany, Mineralogy and Geology each had its own Keeper, who was largely autonomous from the Director, who was himself subject to the Principal Librarian and to the Trustees of the British Museum. Facing a wide array of personalities to contend with and a heavy load of administrative duties, he was a more or less instant success, testifying to his strong but tactful personality.

In 1889 he showed his devotion by installing a statue of Charles Darwin in the Museum. In that year he was chosen as President of the British Association for the Advancement of Science, having previously headed its biological section in 1878 and its anthropological section in 1881 (being chosen again in 1894). In 1893 he served as President of the Museums Association.

In 1895, in addition to his role as Director he took over the post of Keeper of Zoology, holding it until his retirement. He immediately set about rearranging the zoological galleries according to the theories he had evolved on effective presentation by de-cluttering the exhibits, ensuring each specimen had an easy-to-read label, and placing each stuffed animal beside its skeleton and remains of its extinct allies in order to give the displays depth and context.

Other contributions to knowledge
Beyond his continuing interest in primates, he became an expert on the Cetacea, that is the whales and their relatives. He carried out dissections, went out on whaling boats, studied discoveries of whale fossils, and established a whale room at the Natural History Museum with skeletons and plaster casts. It was he who made public the "absolute and complete destruction of two species of right whale by the reckless greed of the whalers".

He made valuable contributions to structural anthropology, for example by publishing complete and accurate measurements of 1,300 human skulls, and as a comparative anatomist in the field of Mammalia he ranked high. He was the first person to show that lemurs are primates.

He was a leading authority on the arrangement of museums. He insisted on the importance of distinguishing between collections intended for the use of specialists and those designed for the instruction of the general public, pointing out that it was as futile to present to the former a number of merely typical forms as to provide the latter with a long series of specimens differing only in the most minute details. His ideas, which were largely and successfully applied to the museums of which he had charge, gained wide approval and entitle him to be seen as a reformer who did much to improve methods of museum arrangement and management.

He also laboured for wider access to museums, both by educated people who needed to know more about the rapidly developing world of science and by ordinary people whose mental horizons could be expanded. He personally led conducted tours for groups across the social spectrum, from royalty at one end to working men at the other.

He became a public figure, his lectures being crowded and his views influential. In a study of deliberate deformation of the human body in various cultures, he included corsets and high heels, illustrating the effects with pictures of distorted female skeletons. Horrified at the widespread slaughter of birds to provide feathers for fashionable hats, he said of the egret: "one of the most beautiful of birds is being swept off the face of the earth under circumstances of peculiar cruelty, to minister to a passing fashion." Which led Beatrix Potter to write: "I wonder what Sir W Flower's speciality is besides ladies' bonnets."

In 1869, he was elected as a member of the American Philosophical Society.

Family and personal life
Flower married Georgiana Rosetta Smyth, on 15 April 1858, at Stone in Buckinghamshire. Georgiana was the youngest daughter of Admiral William Henry Smyth, an astronomer and hydrographer, and his wife Eliza Anne (Annarella) Warington. Flower and Georgiana had four daughters and three sons, including the zoologist Stanley Smyth Flower (18711946). He and his wife led an active life outside his work, over the years meeting many leading figures in British society. Among their friends were the poet laureate Alfred, Lord Tennyson and the leading churchman Dean Stanley.

Having been created a Companion of the Bath in 1887, three years after his first appointment to the Museum, he was appointed Knight Commander of the Order of the Bath (KCB) in 1892. He also received the Jubilee Medal and the Royal Prussian order "Pour le Mérite".

Illness and overwork led him to take retirement from the Natural History Museum in August 1898 and he died at his home in South Kensington on I July 1899, aged 67. His remains were buried with his wife's family at Stone in Buckinghamshire.

Publications
Flowers publications were all but a few on mammals (and surgery); he was not a field biologist, nor a student of the other vertebrate groups. Flower wrote forty articles for the 9th edition of Encyclopædia Britannica, every one on a group of mammals.
 * Diagrams of the nerves of the human body. London 1861.
 * 'Observations of the posterior lobes of the cerebrum of the Quadrumana, with a description of the brain of a Galago'. Proc Roy Soc. 1860–62 xi, 376–81, 508; Phil Trans 1862 185–201.
 * 'Notes on the anatomy of Lithecia Monachus (Geoff.).' Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London, 9 December 1862 1–8
 * 'On the brain of the Javan Loris (Stenops javenicus).' Read 1862, publ. Zool Soc Trans 1866 103–111.
 * 'On the brain of the Siamang (Hylobatis syndactylis).' Nat Hist Rev 1863 279–257.
 * 'Notes on the skeletons of whales in the principal museums of Holland and Belgium, with descriptions of two species apparently new to science.' Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London, 8 November 1864 384–420.
 * An introduction to the osteology of the Mammalia. London 1870; 2nd ed 1876; 3rd ed with Hans Gadow 1883. An introduction to the osteology of the mammalia (1885)
 * 'On the brain of the red Howling Monkey (Mycetes seniculus).' Zool Soc Proc 1864 335–338.
 * Fashion in deformity. 1885.
 * The Horse: a study in natural history. 1890.
 * Introduction to the study of Mammals, living and extinct with Richard Lydekker. London 1891.
 * Essays on Museums and other subjects. London: Macmillan. 1898. (Includes appreciations of Huxley and Owen)
 * Essays on Museums and other subjects. London: Macmillan. 1898. (Includes appreciations of Huxley and Owen)

title: William Henry Flower