text:
Talk:Millerism

Sohrab's book
Reference to this appears to be out of place here per the undue weight policy. His group, "The New History Society/Foundation" doesn't even exist anymore.

A brief reference in passing to the Baha'i perspective does not violate this policy. MARussellPESE 12:54, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

 * I can accept that, I've made it briefer. Hope you can accept my change, since it's neutral. Wjhonson 04:12, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

 * Thief in the night is on almost every Baha'i bookshelf, and most Baha'is read it at one time or another. Sohrab's book however is probably the most obscure example you can find of Baha'i literature pointing to Miller's prophecies. It's not neutral to delete relevant information, it's POV to use a reference to a book which nobody reads (and look it happens to be a Covenant-breaker, how convenient for Wjhonson's agenda). There are hundreds of more relevant books, and you choose Sohrab's?? Could it be that you have an intention that you're not stating? Cuñado  [[image:Bahaitemplatestar.png|link=http://www.bahai.us/|20px]] -  Talk  04:41, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

 * A) This article is not about what orthodox Baha'is believe; B) This article is not about covenant-breakers; C) Neither pov is expressed, and finally D) I put it here because I just happened to come across it while reading. It has nothing to do with my "agenda" whatever you think that is.  My agenda, happens to be, I found an interesting reference so I added the blurb here.  Your removing it is certainly pov since you are stating quite clearly, that your removal is based on your religious beliefs. Wjhonson 05:59, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually the few sentences that mention the Faith are obviously relevant, and it is not POV to mention a well read book which is largely dedicated to Miller's prophecies. If you added the reference to Sohrab out of genuine informational value, then you should be able to recognize that Sears' book is important to mention, and Sohrab's isn't. Cuñado   -  Talk  20:55, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

 * Sohrab wrote his book before Sears didn't he? So what makes you so certain that Sears didn't copy Sohrab's idea?  In that case Sohrab is primary and so deserves actually a higher position than Sears notwithstanding your *opinion* that Sears book is more read than Sohrab's.  It appears however, that you are basing the primary of Sears on an *official Baha'i position* which is pov, since it's religious polemic.  On the basis of historicity there is no basis for excluding Sohrab in favor of Sears.  The only basis is a religious one.  That makes it pov.  Also I do not see that Sears work is "largely dedicated to Miller's prophecies".  Can you make that case?  I'm not seeing it yet. Wjhonson 01:42, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

 * Have you read the book? Cuñado  [[image:Bahaitemplatestar.png|link=http://www.bahai.us/|20px]] -  Talk  08:11, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

 * If you've read Sohrab's book, let me know. I have not read Sears book yet, but I've read several reviews of it.  The message that I took away, is that it is largely a Baha'i apologetic vehicle, not necessarily particularly about Miller, and Sears was not a scholar but an entertainer.  There are reviews which point out that there are many errors in Sears book.  Of course it may be the only acceptable book for Baha'is to read, but that does make it the best one for this particular article. Wjhonson 22:57, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

 * From the Wilmette Institute:
 * "Of course, it is best if we can find answers to our questions in the Sacred Writings themselves but it can also be helpful to read Bahá'í secondary books. It should be kept in mind, however, that these authors often express their own private interpretations which are not authoritative. Helpful secondary works include Christ and Bahá'u'lláh by George Townshend, Understanding Biblical Prophecy and Prophecies of Jesus by Michael Sours, Thief in the Night by William Sears and He Cometh with Clouds by Gary Matthews."

 * I'm familiar with all of those books, but the only one I've read was Thief in the Night, and that's why I added it as a "notable" book about prophecies. If you read any of these, major themes are the prophecies of Daniel and Revelation that point to 1844, and in each book there is mention of three major parties: the Millerites, the German Templars, and the Shaykhi Shi`ah schools. Sears, I recall, focused a lot on the Messianic movement that William Miller was at the head of in the United States. I think any of the four mentioned in the quoted paragraph are worthy to be mentioned as notable Baha'i sources on the subject, so if you don't like Sears then pick one, or just use the web link, which conveniently has the prophecies listed on that page. Cuñado  [[image:Bahaitemplatestar.png|link=http://www.bahai.us/|20px]] -  Talk  03:58, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I fail to see how I'm not playing fair. You are stuck on linking to Sohrab when he is completely insignificant and his book is not read by Baha'is or even published. I tried to remove all the book references and Ansell reverted me. I tried another format and Wjhonson reverted me. Linking to five books is completely an overkill, especially when the Baha'i section is a mere footnote itself on the page, to the point that a lot of people have tried deleting it altogether. Wjhonson, I believe I'm in the right here and unless you make a convincing argument I will continue to delete the reference to Sohrab. Cuñado  -  Talk  05:30, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

 * "Read by Baha's" is completely immaterial to what is scholarly or not. If you want to delete all books I have no problem with that.  However only posting a book that's *approved* by a religious hierarchy, I have a big problem with that.  This encylopaedia is not here is promote a religious pov over all others.  The more you say that what Baha'is believe should take precedence, the more distance you put between your position and mine.  What Baha'is read or believe or do or eat is irrelevant. Wjhonson 05:34, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

 * "What Baha'is read or believe" is exactly why it's relevant, so you should care. It's your ignoring what they read that shows your POV. To be honest I'm not trying to fight here, I would assume just delete all the book references and just post the web link, either that or list about 50 other books that are more notable than Sohrab. Cuñado  [[image:Bahaitemplatestar.png|link=http://www.bahai.us/|20px]] -  Talk  05:37, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

 * I could agree, if this was a page on "what baha'is read" but it isn't. It's a page on Millerites and tangentially on the fact that Baha'is use the same reasoning that he pioneered.  As such, any book that refers to that is certainly relevant.  You started this war by deleting my reference, which was completely innocuous because you assumed I was being confrontational and I was not.  Sohrab's book is completely bland and pro-Baha'i obviously you have not read it.  You replaced it by a book with numerous factual errors simply on the basis that it's a more "approved" work.  That position is pov.  I have no problem in letting both references stay, but I do have a problem in only using one that "Baha'is" approve.  This isn't the Baha'i university here, it's an open, scholarly, platform.  We're not here to uphold the Baha'i position on anything. Wjhonson 05:44, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Section moved
Someone had deleted a large section that some anonymous editor had created over several edits. I thought that was a bit...harsh. So I moved it to the article for "William Miller". It still seems a bit pov to me, but I don't think it should just be haphazardly deleted like that. Wjhonson 07:41, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

 * I deleted it because it was not relevant to this page. As seen by the reduction in relevance even on Millers page by another editor, maybe it was not relevant there either. Bahai and Millerites have nothing in common save the date that the founder of the Millerite movement predicted and possibly the mechanism to get to the date. Ans  e  ll  11:45, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

 * Noone has responded to my statement above, and because the entire mention of Bahai's is causing edit warring simply between bahai members, I am moving the last properly referenced section here. Discuss the issue here.

"The origins of the Bahá'í religion date to the period during which Miller predicted the return of Christ. Bahá'í books mention the Millerites and other messianic movements during the time as having correctly understood the prophecies which pointed to 1844.    Bahá'ís use the same arguments that Miller used as proof that their religion fulfills the prophesied second coming of Christ."

Ans e  ll  06:00, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

 * I agree with Ansell here. The Baha'i Faith does not have enough relevence to the Millerites or Miller to be included here. -- Jeff3000 12:50, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

 * The original blurb was merely a mention that Miller's analysis of the time-line is also used in Baha'i apologetic, with a reference. That is relevant to Miller, it shows that his analysis is used by several current-day religious organizations, not just the SDA for instance.  If someone can find a neutral way of saying this that's fine.  I propose that we leave it without any citation at all if that would work.  I have no problem with not mentioning Sohrab, but I have a problem with only allowing UHJ-approved citations. This is not a UHJ site. Wjhonson 20:22, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

 * Actually, the Baha'i editors here seem to agree that the Baha'i perspective deserves only passing reference at best. The argument about whether Sohrab's out-of-print and un-used book should be shoe-horned in. WP:NPOV cuts every which way. If the Baha'is deserve only the briefest mention, then reference to a single, disaffected, individual whose contributions didn't survive him don't warrant it at all. Nobody gives a damn about him, and outside of the Baha'i faith, nobody knows that he existed.

 * I think the blurb on the Baha'i perspective is a bit intense and would do well with something like:

 * "The origins of the Bahá'í Faith date to the period during which Miller predicted the return of Christ. Bahá'í books mention the Millerites and other messianic movements during the time as having correctly understood the prophecies which pointed to 1844. (Townshend, Christ and Bahá'u'lláh, [1957] 1966, and Sears, Thief in the Night, [1961] 2000, among others.)

 * And, Wjhonson, when WP discusses what "Baha'is believe", there's no other authoritative source than the UHJ; any more than there are authoritative sources for what the Catholic Church "believes" than the Catholic Church. As a Unitarian you might have a problem with that — but that's how these religions work. You might as well use The Davinci Code as an authoritative treatment of Catholic doctrine and practice.

 * Your edit on 14-Apr removing the Sears citation was sloppy, and mis-reads Undue Weight. It actually provides the source for the statements. Why would you delete verifiable sources, which are still in print, for Undue Weight but insist that an unknown, out-of-print, book be used? It makes no sense.

 * FTR, I'm not fond of the anon's expansion of the "blurb". By the time they were done the sub-section was way out of balance, and strongly support Ansell's summary deletion. I also don't think this needs five or more sources. Ye Gods! MARussellPESE 16:37, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

 * Wrong. I am the *one* who added the entire Baha'i reference in the first place.  I used as my source the Sohrab book.  Cunado replaced the ref with the Sears book.  That's what started the whole thing. The Sohrab book is clear and says nothing negative about Baha'is, why don't you read it?  You are automatically assuming it's evil or something just because Sohrab wrote it.  At any rate, this isn't the "Baha'i approved" list of what we can and cannot read and reference.  So it should be either both references, or no references. Wjhonson 04:36, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

 * Wrong. It does not have to have Sohrab or nothing. This has nothing to do with "Baha'i approved" either, I think you're living in a fantasy world when it comes to your big conspiracy theory. But I've lost all my enthusiasm to carry on this fight. As long as you don't add Sohrab I don't care what happens, even if the whole mention of the Baha'i Faith gets deleted. Cuñado  [[image:Bahaitemplatestar.png|link=http://www.bahai.us/|20px]] -  Talk  04:40, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

 * Well what can I think when you delete a perfectly valid reference for one that "Baha'is read" as if that's relevent? The point on this page is only that Miller's analysis influenced other faiths.  What has that got to do with what Baha'is read?  The influence is clear no matter which reference you read, and it's likely that Sears lifted it from Sohrab in the first place.  Unless you can find an earlier reference than Sohrab's. Wjhonson 05:11, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Try dealing with some facts for a change Wjhonson. If you'd actually done the research and familiarized yourself with all the sources you'd find that Sears did his research independently.

The references are desirable to listverifiable sources that document the statements made. Sohrab's book is irrelevant. In fact it's so bloody obscure that had maybe one print run and is only reproduced on H-Bahai (an academic site studying the Babi/Baha'i faiths) as a curiosity of early Baha'i texts. How does this "verify" what Baha'is believe? The logic boggles the mind.

The "influence" of Sohrab's book? What are you talking about? It mentions the Millerites all of once], and doesn't even discuss why. Sears opens Chapter 2 with a detailed discussion of Miller and identifies it as one of the reasons he started looking at the 1843-1844 time-frame. The rest of the book details his own analysis of scriptural references parallel in cases to Miller's.

Sohrab's book couldn't be a worse source on pure academic grounds. You find one out-of-print introductory book online that supports the edit with a single sentence, and can pronounce it "influential"? And instead of letting someone update your source with one that actually addresses what you're trying to say, you revert it as a "polemic". MARussellPESE 13:57, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

 * The first paragraph is your opinion. You have no basis to state that his research was independent.  The second paragraph is really ironic since *I wrote this section* in the first place and listed my source.  It was the deletion of my source that started this.  It's not obscure at all, you have no idea how many print runs it had as if that's relevant which it isn't, and I'm not trying to *verify* what Baha'is believe.  As I've said many times, the official Baha'i position is irrelevant in a encyclopaedia.  What's relevant is what occurred, not what people want to rewrite it as.  What occurred is that Sohrab was the first, so far, source to bring up the Miller connection, and so he has primary authorship for that connection.

 * You of all people, who has chastised *me* to use the primary source, are now resorting to the opposite tactic to try to suppress it. If I'm wrong then find a more primary source that connects Miller's ideas to the Baha'is.

 * Whether there are other scriptural references *parallel in cases to Miller's* is not relevant to *this* article. The only thing that is relevant is the influence Miller had, not the spin Sears put on it or adds to it, that's not relevant.

 * Finally what single sentence are you talking about? I'm not seeing a "single sentence" in Sohrab.  In fact if it where only a single sentence I wouldn't have edited this article in the first place.  I did not say Sohrab's book was *influential*, the influence section is what influence Miller had, not what influence anyone else had.  And *updating* does not mean striking-in-favor-of-religiously-approved-works.  That is pov. Wjhonson 05:48, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Gift of Photograph
I discovered what has proven to be the only known photograph of our brother in Christ, William Miller. It was found in the archive section of the New York Public Library about 15 years ago. I have added it to this article as a gift, a gesture made out of love. Someone accused me of vandalism by adding the image. Not only is that a false accusation, but also unecessary, and very hurtful. Pastorrussell 22:43, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

A question about the connection of millerites and bible students or JWs
It is mentioned twice in the article that Bible Students and JWs originate with the movement of Millerites. How could that be said since Russell was never a member of the Millerite movement? Did Russell consider himself a Millerite or an Adventist? I far as I know, and please correct me if I am wrong, Russell and Bible Students generally had major doctrinal differences with Adventists. I would appreciate your comments on my question.

Vasilis, Greece

 * My understanding is that you're correct. After the Millerites broke up, several of them, along with Russell formed a newsletter, which Russell eventually took over. So although Russell was not part of Miller's movement, he was partners with several prominent Millerites and spoke on the same material. Cuñado  [[image:Bahaitemplatestar.png|20px]] -  Talk  16:08, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. I would like to add that even Russell's close associate Nelson Barbour was at the outskirts of Adventism, and I am wondering if his views about Christ’s advent were ever adopted among Adventists. My personal opinion is that what Russell inherited from Adventists was not their beliefs but their keen interest about the advent of our Lord Jesus Christ. As regards G. Storrs, it seems that he persuaded Russell about the mortality of the soul, but at the same time it is said that Storrs was the very person that introduced this dogma to Adventists. So, even about these doctrines I do not think it accurate to say Russell took them from Adventism. But, to be honest, I would like to see how Adventists or Bible Students see this matter. Vassilis, Greece, 4 July 2006

I didn’t mean to intervene to the article, but this is the result when some people avoid to make a conversation.Vassilis78 09:10, 17 July 2006 (UTC

The exact relationship between Russell and the Millerite movement is a little difficult to define. There is no doubt a connection between the methodology of Miller & the Millerites and Russell (and of course the hoped for event was the same--the Second Coming of Christ) and it is certain that Russell was influenced by the ideas of certain Adventists (more accurate I feel than Millerites). --JCrocombe (talk) 15:03, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) By 1870 (when Russell appears to have been in contact with Jonas Wendell) there really does not exist a Millerite movement as such. Following the Great Disappointment of 1844 there was a fragmenting of the movement--exacerbated by Miller's death in 1849. By 1870 it is more accurate to speak of various "adventist" groups" rather than "Millerite groups--in 1860 the Advent Christian Association (later the Advent Christian Church) was formed and in 1863 both the Seventh-day Adventist Church and the Life and Advent Union were also been formally organized.
 * 2) While Jonas Wendell used a methodology similar to William Miller, he arrived at dates that Miller never calculated.
 * 3) In 1870, Russell and his friends formed a Bible study group in Pittsburgh they were joined by Adventist pastors George Storrs and George Stetson. Storrs promoted the doctrine of conditional immortality, and both the Advent Christian church and the Seventh-day Adventist church accepted this doctrine principally due to the work of Storrs.
 * 4) Storrs was founding president of the Life and Advent Union and was not an Advent Christian nor a Seventh-day Adventist.
 * 5) Nelson H. Barbour was a Millerite who following the Great Disappointment seems not to have been involved with any of the major groups but following his independent study promoted the Second Coming of Christ in 1873. Barbour seems not to have ever been as member of denominations that arose out of the Millerite Movement like the Advent Christian Church or the Seventh-day adventist Church--nor were his views ever accepted by these groups.

I agree with your conclusions.--Vassilis78 (talk) 13:02, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

 * Probably true, all of it. But since f.ex. liberal theologists share a certain method of interpretation while reaching quite different results, and JVs, Millerites and Adventists share another method of interpretation, the concept of generalized Millerism (my term, don't use unless you find it outside Wikipedia) might be a viable classification to have in mind when writing about Millerites and similar groups. ... said: Rursus (bork²) 17:08, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Contradiction
Burned-over district disagrees on just what date he prophecied as the end of the world. Discussion at Talk:Burned-over district. - Jmabel | Talk 00:41, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Merger
I have proposed a merger between Millerites and Adventist. The terms seem the same to me, but I don't have a great knowledge of history in this area, so if someone has a good reason not to merge, it's fine by me. Colin MacLaurin 14:10, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Do Not Merge - Not all of the Adventist (believers in the second coming of Christ) derived from the Millerite movement, i.e. Davidian Seventh-day Adventist Association, United Seventh-Day Brethren. Granted, some are indirectly related because they came out of a subsequent groups of the movement. The Adventist movement also is not all Sabbatarians, though I recognize this is a weaker argument. Lastly, by merging, the Millerite article will become too long. And Wikipedia does suggest sub pages to prevent articles from being too long. --User: (talk) 18:42, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

More Comments - I have examined several articles in the Seventh-day Adventist Encyclopedia. It has an article "Millerite Movement":
 * "An interdenominational movement flourishing in the United States, with some extensions elsewhere, from 1840 to 1844, based on a distinctive prophetic interpretation, and giving rise to the group of denominations classed as Adventist bodies, the largest of which is now the SDA Church."

This contradicts with the Wikipedia Millerites article which currently says,
 * "The Millerite tradition is a diverse family of denominations and Bible study movements that have arisen since the middle of the 19th century, traceable to the Adventist movement sparked by the teachings of William Miller."

According to the SDA Encyclopedia, the Millerite movement lasted from 1840 to 1844, and died off quickly after that. The SDA Encyclopedia gives several definitions for "Adventist" - the name the early Millerites took for themselves; any of several bodies arising from that movement; or as an abbreviation of Seventh-day Adventist (in SDA usage). Mergers are not necessarily needed. But what is certainly needed is clear definition of the terms, and clear definitions of the scope of each article. Perhaps Millerites should be about the early history, and Adventist about the later history (although the opening sentence of Millerites currently suggests the direct opposite)! I know of two Seventh-day Adventist history experts who have edited Wikipedia - hopefully they will comment. Colin MacLaurin 07:56, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

 * Personally, I would go with the SDA Encyclopedia. I've always thought of the Millerite movement as a historical thing which died at the Great Disappointment, whereas "Adventist" encapsulates both Millerism and its legacy -- i.e. the churches and denominations which descended from it and are still alive today. So I'd be against a merge. Tonicthebrown 09:44, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

 * Mostly agreed. But where do we put groups which either descended from or were influenced by William Miller and the Millerites, but who do not consider themselves "Adventist"? e.g. the Jehovah's Witnesses and others, I understand. Should Great Disappointment be merged into Millerites? Much of the article is about groups influenced by the Millerites, but not Adventists. Perhaps "Millerites" should be a history of the movement, its theology, and its later influences. One section within the influences would be "Adventists", with a main link to Adventist. I have contacted two Adventist history experts and requested their input. Colin MacLaurin 08:58, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I agreer no merger is necessary since there were several groups born from the millerite movement not just adventism. nate.

I am a Seventh-day Adventist so I'm very familiar with SDA history. Millerites and Seventh-day Adventists does not refer to the same thing. Adventists continued after the millerite movement broke up, and Seventh-day Adventists arose out of that. But there were other groups of Adventists, such as First Day Adventists, etc., that didn't become SDAs.

 * I just read the Encyclopedia Britannica article on "Adventism". Unfortunately it is an old edition from about 1960. It said that "Millerites" was a term applied by those outside the movement, and "Adventist" was probably a self-designation. The article was very good, and I suggest we incorporate material from it into several Adventist articles. Colin MacLaurin 16:15, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

New merger proposal
I suggest an alternate merger instead. How about merging Great Disappointment into Millerites. After all, "The Great Disappointment was a major event in the history of the Millerites" according to the former article. Adventist would cover those groups descended from the Millerite movement which either consider themselves "Adventist", or are considered by notable opinion to be "Adventist". The Millerites article could describe other groups which were later influenced by William Miller and the movement, but were not a part of the original movement. This material is currently in "Great Disappointment" so could be merged in. It would also talk about Adventism, but only be a short summary-style paragraph with a main link. Please express your support or offer an improvement. Unfortunately, I am not aware that an Adventist history expert has commented. Colin MacLaurin 22:30, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The article has sufficient info and is of sufficient note to be a separate article. -- Alan Liefting talk 10:44, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose This event was noteworthy for many other reasons, not the least of which is Millerite history. Miller's group was not the only group affected by the end times fever. unsigned comment added by 207.43.79.22 (talk)

Conclusion: Do not merge. I now agree with the opposers. My main concern was for these various related articles to each have a clearly defined scope. They overlap significantly, so in this case my logical side insists that certain articles be embedded within others via. main links, so that a clear logical hierarchy is established. I will proceed to do this. Colin MacLaurin 12:13, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Scope
I ask again about the scope of this article. The opening sentence currently ready, "The Millerite tradition is a diverse family of denominations and Bible study movements that have arisen since the middle of the 19th century, traceable to the Adventist movement sparked by the teachings of William Miller."

This reads in reverse to my understanding of the term "Millerites". The article Great Controversy has details on the influences on other groups. Adventist describes only a subset of those influences; those who see themselves as descendants only. Should this article just be about the history of the Millerite Adventist movement up until the Great Disappointment of 1844? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Colin MacLaurin (talk • contribs) 12:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

The opening phrase is indeed very poorly worded. Put simply, the Millerites were the followers of the teachings of William Miller on the soon return of Christ. Initially, they were focussed almost exclusively on this belief and had no interest in discussing other areas of theology. Following the Great Disappointment, this changed and there was a fragmenting of the movement and a proliferation of ideas not only on the second coming but on issues like the Seventh day Sabbath and the State of the Dead. The article accurately points out that "he Millerite movement originally had adherents across denominational lines, especially from Baptist, Presbyterian, Methodist and Campbellite churches, forming distinct denominations only after the Great Disappointment." The article is OK (with heavy editing) up until the heading "Distinguished from the other groups and movements" which is basically irrelevant & contains unsupported statements (like that on Southcott). What is missing (and what needs to become a major portion of the article is what happens post Great Disappointment. Here the Albany Conference is key and the formation of the various groups (and later, denominations). I suggest that George R. Knight's book Millennial Fever is an excellent reference for this - particularly p245-342). --JCrocombe (talk) 15:27, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

 * Thanks for the input - always good to get expert help. For now, I have added the book to the references section. Colin MacLaurin (talk) 08:33, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I have completed a major edit. Feedback would be appreciated. It still needs a lot of stylistic work to conform to Wikipedia standards. Also missing is a discussion of the social background of the Millerites --who were they & something short on ascension robes & how the Millerites awaited the Great Disappointment--both of which I hope to complete in the not-to-distant future. JCrocombe (talk) 16:10, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

 * Great works thanks JCrocombe. I have added a lot of wikilinks. A few things I wasn't sure about: Does "Dresden" refer to Dresden, Washington County, New York? "Wm. Miller's Apology and Defence, Boston, MT" looks funny - is "Boston" meant to appear within the book title? Is "Rochester" Rochester, New York? Please check my 5603 or 5604 Hebrew year comment. Colin MacLaurin (talk) 03:22, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Fixed the Book title, thanks for pointing it out. I assume that both the Rochester & Dresden locations are correct as you say though Miller does not specify further. Would it be appropriate to ask that this article be re-rated in the near future? Is it now better than "start class"? JCrocombe (talk) 06:59, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

 * Hi JCrocombe, I promoted it to "B" class, the next one up. Anybody feel free to nominate it as a good article. Not sure if JCrocombe wanted to add some more to it first as he mentioned earlier. Colin MacLaurin (talk) 05:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm
This edit is interesting. It was done by an anon as his/her only edit. Revert? --Cromwellt|talk|contribs 00:04, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I also can't find the link on this page to the redirect page Seventh-day Adventist . Otherwise, I'd fix it as Seventh-day Adventist or similar.  --Cromwellt|talk|contribs 00:07, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Resources

 * The King is Coming, Eventually - article in Christianity Today. Colin MacLaurin 09:37, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Millerite/Adventist groups in an old version of the page. Colin MacLaurin (talk) 17:59, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Doctrine?
It would be good to have more specifics about the Millerite doctrine. The doctrine section talks a bit about issues under discussion, but is not clear on exactly what these issues were or how they were resolved. It would be good to be more clear. Kristamaranatha (talk) 04:35, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 00:06, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

In Popular Culture
Could a section on portrayals in popular culture be added? The current season of The Leftovers, for instance, gives a rather vivid and moving glimpse into the experience of this sect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MattyIce79 (talk • contribs) 22:09, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Millerism. 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/20070902122809/http://www.tagnet.org/washington/history/millerite.html to http://www.tagnet.org/washington/history/millerite.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:55, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Millerism. 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/20110721184913/http://www.auss.info/auss_publication_file.php?pub_id=352&journal=1&type=pdf to http://auss.info/auss_publication_file.php?pub_id=352&journal=1&type=pdf

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) 11:15, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

title: Talk:Millerism


text:
Talk:Toastmasters International

.

Gutted article!!! (2)
Can you give me more info about what your issue is with this edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Toastmasters_International&diff=886680418&oldid=886670911 ? Is it the first part or the second part (or both) that you have a problem with? They both have citations. I would like to re-add a section about Distinguished Toastmaster (DTM) as I originally stumbled upon this page from a link to -> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toastmasters_International#Distinguished_Toastmaster however that section no longer exists (since you removed it a while back). It seems there are a few places linking to it, so can you give me more info as to what would be ok to add to define what it is? I think it doesn't get any more plain than "The Distinguished Toastmaster (DTM) award is the highest educational award given out by Toastmasters International." User9342 (talk) 02:11, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Toastmasters leadership claim discussion
What is your problem with this one word edit of adding "leadership" https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Toastmasters_International&diff=886670480&oldid=882127460 ? At the bottom of the page, this article is already categorized under "Leadership training", so I don't understand what your problem with this statement is. That is what Toastmasters does. Do you need a citation or something? User9342 (talk) 02:11, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

 * It's a meaningless marketing claim. Guy (Help!) 08:02, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I'm not sure what you're trying to get at. Are you trying to say that Toastmasters International doesn't provide leadership education and you want more evidence to prove this? Or are you saying that leadership education in general is a meaningless marketing claim and that no Wikipedia page should state that? User9342 (talk) 15:57, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * No, I am saying that the claim that they provide "leadership training" is a self-serving promotional claim with no objective meaning and no source that does not track right back to their own PR. Guy (Help!) 17:15, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Before I actually received leadership training, I actually thought similarly. After I received leadership training, I realized that this certainly is a clear area that one can receive training on. Toastmasters International does provide this training, including printed manuals and exercises on the topic. There are other articles as well, such as for the Boy Scouts - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scout_(Scouting) that also claim Scouts learn leadership through the program (and I would agree as well). Do you think the claims on leadership programs should be removed from that article also? Is this a better citation for you "The Complete Idiot's Guide to Assertiveness" By Jeff Davidson published by Penguin in 1997 page 125 - "The leadership skills you can acquire in Toastmasters can increase your potential as an executive or manager" "you can obtain leadership training and experience" "you can become part of Toastmasters' Advanced Communication and Leadership Program, which consists of more challenging assignments that you complete" Would you say this is better evidence to support this statement? Thanks User9342 (talk) 18:23, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * See WP:NOR. Your personal belief based on your personal involvement with a company is not acceptable on Wikipedia. Numerous organisations claim to provide "leadership training". Very few are accounted to do so by reliable independent secondary sources. It is a marketing claim, and one with no objective definition. Guy (Help!) 04:49, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I've cited a very clear reliable source (a book published in 1997) in my comment above. What is wrong with that source? Why is it indisputable that Toastmasters International provides public speaking training, but you believe it is disputable that they provide leadership training? That is the part I do not understand. It seems you believe leadership training is more of a PR claim rather than a clear field of study with an objective definition? Is that what your main issue is here? The study of leadership is a lot more well-defined than I think you believe. There are university programs with clear curriculums based on the study of leadership. The Toastmasters High Performance Leadership manual material overlaps with university-based leadership curriculums. User9342 (talk) 10:04, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * See WP:UNDUE. This firm is about public speaking. Leave it at that, regardless of your devotion to them. Guy (Help!) 13:34, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I asked someone else about what they thought of our discussion. One important point of confusion I just want to clarify is that I'm not trying to say Toastmasters promotes leadership skills simply because they promote public speaking skills (I can understand why you might have thought this is a promotional claim if that was the case). They have separate leadership programs/activities/education that are separate from the public speaking training. Examples: High Performance Leadership program, Leadership Development path, Dynamic Leadership path, and many more. Those programs focus on leadership. I'm not saying they promote leadership solely because they have public speaking programs. I'm saying it because they have a distinct leadership curriculum. Does that help clarify my viewpoint?
 * The organization has been about both public speaking and leadership since it was incorporated. I still don't understand your point of view as to why you are so against stating they promote leadership skills when the article is already in the category "leadership training". The book I previously cited is a reliable independent source (it is not based on Toastmasters PR material) and Toastmasters clearly publishes leadership education materials (as they have since their incorporation). Leadership was mentioned in the first sentence of the Wikipedia article for a very long time all the way back to 2005 - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Toastmasters_International&oldid=25440316 . It is indisputably true (and is one of the main focuses of the organization) and if you are still not convinced, unless you have a good reason as to why they actually do not promote leadership skills, I think we should ask a neutral third party to provide their opinion. User9342 (talk) 17:57, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The organization may claim to be about leadership, but it's actually about public speaking. And this article has a looooooong history of eing abused as a PR platform for primary-sourced PR claims with no independent scrutiny. For comparison, my son has just completed a course of study at a place that is genuinely known for leadership training. The two are chalk and cheese. The bullshit "leadership" that you get from small commercial organisations like this is not actual leadership training, it's just basic self-confidence. And yes, that's my WP:OR, so I don't include it, but you get the point: your personal belief is no more valid than mine, and there is no robust body of sourcing that makes this claim (in fact most reliable independent sources entirely ignore Toastmasters). Guy (Help!) 04:41, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Personally being a member of TM, I can see the problems of sourcing anything related to the organization on here. I applaud you,, for gutting all of the PR sentences and keeping this article as NPOV as possible. I see a lot of government programs using TM as a means of leadership along with public speaking but that's also my original research to share. Just wanted to comment to acknowledge that the discussion helps. – The Grid  ( talk )  12:13, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you. And the key, as always, is reliable independent secondary sources. A shorter article with better sourcing, is a better article and actually makes the subject looks better IMO. Guy (Help!) 12:59, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree the old article had a lot of things that should have been removed. I don't want to add in significant amounts of new material, however I do think there are minor important areas that are omitted from this version of the article. From your previous message, one minor correction, this is not a commercial organization. It is a non-profit organization. But I think I understand your point of view that you don't believe Toastmasters offers genuine leadership training. I have one document here Developing Leaders written on behalf of Commandant of the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst and I have another document here High Performance Leadership published by Toastmasters International. There is clear overlap between the leadership document from RMA Sandhurst and the one from Toastmasters. Examples below (any page numbers I reference are the ones from the bottom of the page of the document, not the PDF page number):
 * - There is clear overlap in how they both describe a leader must provide a vision for the team. It is on page 40 of the RMA Sandhurst document and on page 10 of the Toastmasters document.
 * - There is clear overlap in how they both describe how leaders have values. It is on page 13 of the RMA Sandhurst document and on page 10 of the Toastmasters document.
 * - There is clear overlap in how they both describe leaders must provide support for their team. It is on page 40 of the RMA Sandhurst document and on page 12 of the Toastmasters document.
 * - There is clear overlap in how they both describe how leaders develop their team members and support them. It is on page 40 of the RMA Sandhurst document and on page 47 of the Toastmasters document.
 * I could continue on finding more overlap, but I only have so much time in the day. As you can see, there is clear overlap between the leadership education material written by what you describe as "a place that is genuinely known for leadership training" and the leadership education material published by Toastmasters International. Aside from that, I will reiterate, earlier in this comment thread I have previously cited a reliable independent source (a book published in 1997) that is not based on Toastmasters PR material that states at Toastmasters "you can obtain leadership training and experience." You never stated you had a problem with that source. Additionally, here is another reliable source, Wall Street Journal - "More Than Ever, Speakers Need Preparation, Humor" (May 28, 1999) "Several hundred new Toastmasters clubs, which promote leadership and communications skills, have been set up in the past year in Asia" <-- If the Wall Street Journal is willing to make the statement that Toastmasters clubs promote leadership and communication skills, I see absolutely no reason why this article can't state they promote leadership skills., would you say all of this is now sufficient evidence to make the simple statement that Toastmasters promotes leadership skills? User9342 (talk) 00:42, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Do you understand what makes a source independent? Do you understand what a novel synthesis is? Guy (Help!) 09:45, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * My statement comparing the documents was more of an appeal to your statement when you mentioned RMA Sandhurst provides actual leadership. I was hoping you would see that Toastmasters actually does provide leadership training with reasonable educational materials just like RMA Sandhurst, not just "self-confidence" as you previously mentioned. That is not my citation or official Wikipedia reasoning for putting the statement in the article. I stated the official sources I was citing before. You still never stated you had a problem with the reliable independent source I previously cited. Are you going to actually specifically refute the source I cited or not? What specifically is inappropriate or incorrect about it? It seems you just believe there is an issue with the quality of the leadership education at Toastmasters, but I have not seen any evidence to back that up. Do you have any sources that state the leadership claims from my citations are incorrect? You may be able to convince me, but I need some actual detail on this. User9342 (talk) 16:27, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Unless anyone has any further discussion they'd like to add, I will be re-adding the leadership statement to the article from my original edit. Not only is it Toastmaster's official About Us statement for the non-profit organization, these are 4 independent reliable source citations to back up this statement:
 * - "The Complete Idiot's Guide to Assertiveness" By Jeff Davidson (1997) page 125 - "The leadership skills you can acquire in Toastmasters can increase your potential as an executive or manager" "you can obtain leadership training and experience"
 * - Wall Street Journal - "More Than Ever, Speakers Need Preparation, Humor" (May 28, 1999) https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB927820484925480696 "Several hundred new Toastmasters clubs, which promote leadership and communications skills, have been set up in the past year in Asia"
 * - "Leadership Soup: A Healthy Yet Tasty Recipe for Living And Leading on Purpose" By Kamran Akbarzadeh (2011) page 44 - "One great organization through which you can enhance your communication and leadership skills is Toastmasters International"
 * - "Turn Your Accent into an Asset" by Olayinka Joseph (2006) page 61 - "You too can benefit from Toastmasters' programs and the people who belong to Toastmasters. They are the best communication and leadership skills development organization you can find anywhere in the world."
 * If anyone is looking for additional justification aside from those 4 citations, please read my older comments above. User9342 (talk) 01:39, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Meeting Format section
I propose that we edit the meeting format section to follow the three part structure of meetings. We would have prepared speeches, table topics, and evaluations. Leaving evaluations out fails to highlight this critical component of the meeting and the nature of an educational organization.

Additionally, after these three, we could highlight common variants like debates, facilitated discussion, etc. Philoserf (talk) 18:43, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I suggest instead that you remove it. This article reads as an advertisement. Guy (help!) 21:06, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Alternative similar speaker organisations
Is Toastmasters the only organisation for speakers, or are there others? FreeFlow99 (talk) 22:07, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

 * @FreeFlow99 There are other organizations, profit and non-profit, but Toastmasters is the oldest notable one I am aware of. I’ll comment further on your Talk page, then if that leads to an edit for this article we can bring it back. D1doherty (talk) 16:48, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Toastmaster meetings will be held online via videoconferencing
That's why we need a link to show how to use videoconferencing software like Zoom, such as this helpful presentation.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:13, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a tutorial. Current events are time bound. The information can be found elsewhere. I do not agree with the addition of this external link. —¿philoserf? (talk) 19:30, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , all events are time-bound. All information can be found elsewhere. Can you make any good arguments for deleting the link?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:06, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , thank you. That was a better edition. I’d have preferred a reference to an article in the Encyclopedia about teleconferencing software  over a link to Zoom specific content. —¿philoserf? (talk) 19:42, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * And no external link please —¿philoserf? (talk) 19:48, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * No external links? None? What's the reasoning behind that? Of course Wikipedia isn't a tutorial, but it is perfectly fine to add external links to them, particularly when most in-person Toastmasters meetings around the world are not being held, and are being replaced by videoconferencing events. The argument that "information can be found elsewhere" could be applied to any information. There will be plenty of readers here who are interested in TM meetings via Zoom and this link is exactly what they'll need.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:53, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , this link for reasons already stated. I retire from the conversation now. —¿philoserf? (talk) 19:56, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * You didn't make much of a case Philoserf. Check out the policy on linking. It reads There are several things that should be considered when adding an external link. Is the site content accessible to the reader? Is the site content proper in the context of the article (useful, tasteful, informative, factual, etc.)? Is the link functioning and likely to remain functional?. Answer to all three questions: Yes Yes Yes. Keep the link.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:59, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with Philoserf—this link isn't appropriate. If it were an official video posted by Toastmasters International, that might be worth considering, though even that would fail the WP:Ten year test. —Granger (talk · contribs) 23:55, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Is there a reason that you think the link is inappropriate? It is highly appropriate. The video is a tutorial done by a Toastmaster. It is about how to use a videoconferencing tool to hold Toastmaster meetings. There are no in-person meetings being held any more. Users are wisely gravitating to the videoconferencing model but the technology is so new that many users worldwide don't know how to use it. This video shows them how. If Toastmasters International has a better Zoom video tutorial, show us.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:06, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * It's a little-known Youtube how-to of temporary relevance made by someone who isn't a representative the article's subject.
 * If you're interested in putting together a Zoom "how to" guide, that sounds like a worthwhile project that might fit well on Wikibooks. But Wikipedia is not a how-to guide. —Granger (talk · contribs) 02:28, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The not a how-to-guide rule is about content within the article; this is an external link. That the tutorial is "little-known" is irrelevant. And the person who made the video is a longstanding member of the Toastmaster community, a respected DTM with much experience in public speaking. What is relevant is that the video is useful, especially now, and will continue to be in the future, since in the indefinite future with this pandemic, most Toastmaster meetings will be gravitating to videoconferencing. The Wikipedia policy on external links reads Some acceptable links include ... meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article....". What can be linked is Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to ... other reasons. The 'other reasons' is as Mx Granger said, that it is a how-to guide. The video is neutral, accurate, and highly relevant since few, if any Toastmaster meetings will be held in-person for the foreseeable future, and few Toastmasters know how to navigate the software. Keep the link.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 08:31, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Smedley Chapter One Edits
Someone keeps adding Smedley Chapter One back into the article and putting it in bold. It should be considered an ad/spam.

The statement that Toastmasters International "grew out of a single club, Smedley Chapter One Club" IS FALSE. The first club was NOT named that in 1924. It later adopted that name around 1977 - 1979. Originally, it was just the Toastmasters Club and was given "No. 1" after additional clubs were formed. It's inaccurate to state Toastmasters International grew out of "Smedley Chapter One Club" as that was NOT the name of the club back then.

Even when clubs started going by specific names, that first club was referred to as "Smedley No. One" (NOT "Chapter") Sources that use the EXACT name "Smedley No. One":
 * The Toastmaster May 1951 Volume 17 No 5
 * The 1953 Directory of Clubs
 * The Toastmasters Special Directory Issue January 1960 Volume 26 No 1A
 * The Toastmaster October 1974 Volume 40 No 10
 * The Toastmaster September 1976 Volume 42 No 9

Based on the documents I can find, that club only started being known as "Smedley Chapter One" sometime between 1977 and 1979. The Toastmaster January 1980 refers to the club as "Smedley Chapter One" (and it is still known by that name).

Regardless, there's no reason to put the name "Smedley Chapter One" in the article as that WAS NOT what the club was known by in 1924. Toastmasters International did not grow out of anything named "Smedley Chapter One". -- ProfessionalCost (talk) 03:38, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

First international club
Hi @User:Larry Hockett, I notice you reverted a correction without comment. What was your concern? The newsletter cited as the source for info about the first international club is incorrect. How can we fix the TI article?

The TI website says TI was incorporated in 1932 and the first international club was chartered in 1935 (First Canadian #38 in Victoria).

ref: https://www.toastmasters.org/About/History

As I understand it, there was a club started in Vancouver in 1932, but it did not charter.

Wikipedia requires independent reliable sources, so I don’t think we can just quote the TI site.

A volunteer historian wrote a book about the history of “The club that made Toastmasters truly international.” He is connected with other TI historians. There are articles cited in his book. I’ve asked him to provide his sources.

Does this address your concern about this edit? D1doherty (talk) 18:25, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

How to edit references?
Help please! The link in reference 2 is broken. I have added and edited references in the past, but am now not seeing how to do this.

I've looked in Help and on the web. I've tried on iMac (MAC OS) and iPhone & iPad (iOS) in Chrome and Safari.

1. When I hover over the citation I see no EDIT button associated with the ref, just an option 'cog'

2. Using iOS, an older version of the ref list is displayed when I click on [edit] in the in the reference section.

New link for ref 2 is https://www.toastmasters.org/About/ D1doherty (talk) 17:32, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

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

title: Talk:Toastmasters International


text:
Alexander's law

Alexander's law refers to gaze-evoked nystagmus that occurs after an acute unilateral vestibular loss. It was first described in 1912 and has three elements to explain how the vestibulo-ocular reflex responds to an acute vestibular insult. The first element says that spontaneous nystagmus after an acute vestibular impairment has the fast phase directed toward the healthy ear. The direction of the nystagmus, by convention, is named for the fast phase, so the spontaneous nystagmus is directed toward the healthy ear. The second element says nystagmus is greatest when gaze is directed toward the healthy ear, is attenuated at central gaze and may be absent when gaze is directed toward the impaired ear. The third element says that spontaneous nystagmus with central gaze is augmented when vision is denied. This became apparent with the implementation of electrographic testing.

Alexander's law states that in individuals with nystagmus, the amplitude of the nystagmus increases when the eye moves in the direction of the fast phase (saccade). It is manifested during spontaneous nystagmus in a patient with a vestibular lesion. The nystagmus becomes more intense when the patient looks in the quick-phase than in the slow-phase direction.

The law was named after Gustav Alexander who described it in 1912.

title: Alexander's law


text:
Category:Twin Peaks characters

Characters from the ABC television series Twin Peaks and the film Twin Peaks: Fire Walk with Me

title: Category:Twin Peaks characters


text:
Oregon Route 217

Oregon Route 217 (OR 217), also known as the Beaverton-Tigard Highway No. 144, is a north-south controlled-access state highway in Washington County, Oregon. The route travels along the west suburbs of Portland, starting at US Route 26 (US 26) in Beaverton and ending at Interstate 5 (I-5) in Tigard.

OR 217 was initially a route on surface streets which ran from OR 8 in Beaverton and Wilsonville. Construction of the current freeway segment occurred from the mid-1960s to the early 1970s, with the highway re-routed onto it afterwards.

Route description
OR 217 begins at an interchange with US 26 and nearby Barnes Road near the St. Vincent Hospital. It then travels southwest before reaching Walker Road, after which it travels south towards Canyon Road (OR 8) and Beaverton Hillsdale Highway (OR 10), passing the Beaverton Town Center. Directly after the interchange, the highway turns southeasterly before turning back south right before the Denney Road interchange.

The highway intersects Hall Boulevard near the Hall/Nimbus WES station and Scholls Ferry Road, and then proceeds to turn back southeast. The highway continues southeast for the rest of its route, after which it passes Greenburg Road and nearby Washington Square. The highway then intersects OR 99W and 72nd Avenue. After that, it enters an interchange with I-5, with southbound traffic continuing east towards Lake Oswego as Kruse Way.

for most of its length, OR 217 is a freeway with two travel lanes in each direction, with a third weave lane for exiting and merging, with the exception of its two termini. TriMet's Westside Express Service, a commuter rail line, runs parallel to the highway between Tigard and Beaverton.

History
OR 217 originally ran along surface streets before it was relocated to freeway sections. The highway started at the junction of OR 8 and Hall Boulevard. in Beaverton, continuing along Hall Boulevard through Beaverton, Progress, Metzger, and Tigard for 7 mi until it reached Durham Road. There, it took a left onto Durham Road, following it for about 0.8 mi until the intersection with Boones Ferry Road. It remained on Boones Ferry Road through Durham, Tualatin, and Wilsonville for about 8 mi, crossing the Willamette River on the Boones Ferry and continuing south for another 5 mi until finally ending at OR 99E at Aurora, for a grand total of about 20 mi or so. The southern terminus was scaled back to Wilsonville (current I-5 exit 286) with the completion of I-5 to Portland. This older highway, called the Beaverton-Aurora Highway, was kept in the state highway system as the Beaverton-Tualatin Highway No. 141, and was recently given the route designation OR 141.

The freeway carrying OR 217 was built in the mid-1960s to early 1970s in several stages, generally beginning at the south end. The full length of the freeway was repaved for the first time in the mid-1980s, along with the replacement of metal median barriers with concrete dividers. By 1985, approximately 60,000 to 68,000 vehicles used OR 217 daily. The intersection of OR 217 and US 26 in Beaverton was replaced with an interchange in 1986 after two years of construction.

Future
ODOT started construction on the Auxiliary Lanes Project in December 2021, which aims to add a southbound auxiliary lane from exit 2A to exit 6 and a northbound auxiliary lane from exit 6 to exit 4. The Allen Boulevard southbound on-ramp and Denney Road southbound off-ramp will be removed for a new frontage road being constructed in place of it.

title: Oregon Route 217


text:
Austin Flint murmur

In cardiology, an Austin Flint murmur is a low-pitched rumbling heart murmur which is best heard at the cardiac apex. It can be a mid-diastolic or presystolic murmur It is associated with severe aortic regurgitation, although the role of this sign in clinical practice has been questioned.

Mechanism
Echocardiography, conventional and colour flow Doppler ultrasound, and cine nuclear magnetic resonance (cine NMR) imaging suggest the murmur is the result of (aortic regurgitant) flow impingement on the inner surface of the heart, i.e. the endocardium.

Classical description
Classically, it is described as being the result of mitral valve leaflet displacement and turbulent mixing of anterograde mitral flow and retrograde aortic flow:

Displacement: The blood jets from the aortic regurgitation strike the anterior leaflet of the mitral valve, which often results in premature closure of the mitral leaflets. This can be mistaken for mitral stenosis.

Turbulence of the two columns of blood: Blood from left atrium to left ventricle and blood from aorta to left ventricle.

Name
The Austin Flint murmur is named after the 19th century American physician, Austin Flint (1812–1886). He disapproved of associating any physical sign with the name of the original describer, and wrote, "So long as signs are determined from fancied analogies, and named from these or after the person who describes them, there cannot but be obscurity and confusion."

title: Austin Flint murmur


text:
Bourgeois pseudoscience

Bourgeois pseudoscience (Буржуазная лженаука) was a term of condemnation in the Soviet Union for certain scientific disciplines that were deemed unacceptable from an ideological point of view due to their incompatibility with Marxism–Leninism. At various times pronounced "bourgeois pseudosciences" were: Mendelian genetics, cybernetics, quantum physics, theory of relativity, sociology and particular directions in comparative linguistics (the now-debunked Japhetic theory of Nikolay Yakovlevich Marr, which was also refuted by Stalin in "Marxism and Problems of Linguistics").

The term was not used by Stalin himself, who rejected the notion that all sciences must have a class nature. Stalin removed all mention of “bourgeois biology” from Trofim Lysenko’s report, The State of Biology in the Soviet Union, and in the margin next to the statement that “any science is based on class” Stalin wrote, “''Ha-ha-ha!! And what about mathematics? Or Darwinism?” The term or its synonyms was used it in the 1951 and 1954 editions of the Short Philosophical Dictionary'': "Cybernetic is a reactionary pseudoscience originated in the United States... A form of modern mechanicism.", "Eugenics is a bourgeois pseudoscience", "Weismannism-Morganism - bourgeois pseudoscience, designed to justify capitalism". Today, most scholars agree in characterizing eugenics as rooted in pseudoscience, albeit without the "bourgeois" qualifier.

Psychology was declared a "bourgeois pseudoscience" in People's Republic of China during the Cultural Revolution (1966–1976). Furthermore, sociology was banned there in 1952, and it remained banned for over 30 years.

title: Bourgeois pseudoscience


text:
Bouchard's nodes

Bouchard's nodes are hard, bony outgrowths or gelatinous cysts on the proximal interphalangeal joints (the middle joints of fingers or toes). They are seen in osteoarthritis, where they are caused by the formation of calcific spurs of the articular (joint) cartilage. Much less commonly, they may be seen in rheumatoid arthritis, where nodes are caused by antibody deposition to the synovium. Bouchard's nodes are comparable in presentation to Heberden's nodes, which are similar osteoarthritic growths on the distal interphalangeal joints, but are significantly less common.

Eponym
Bouchard's nodes are named after French pathologist Charles Jacques Bouchard (1837–1915).

title: Bouchard's nodes


text:
Asoka (2001 film)

As̅oka is a 2001 Indian Hindi-language epic historical drama film directed and co-written by Santosh Sivan. It is a dramatized version of the early life of emperor Asoka, of the Maurya Empire, who ruled most of the Indian subcontinent in the 3rd century BCE. The film stars Shah Rukh Khan as the titular character alongside Kareena Kapoor, Rahul Dev, Danny Denzongpa, Hrishitaa Bhatt, and Ajith Kumar in a special appearance. It was produced by Gauri Khan, Juhi Chawla and Radhika Sangoi. The screenplay was written by Santosh Sivan and Saket Chaudhary and the dialogue by Abbas Tyrewala. It was originally released as Ashoka: The Great in India.

Asoka was widely screened across the United Kingdom and North America, and was also selected for screening at the Venice Film Festival and the Toronto International Film Festival, where it received positive reviews. Also dubbed into Tamil.

At the 47th Filmfare Awards, Asoka received 5 nominations, including Best Film, Best Director (Sivan) and Best Actress (Kapoor), and won Best Cinematography (Sivan). This is also penultimate production venture of Dreamz Unlimited.

Plot
The film chronicles the early part of the life of Emperor Asoka. It begins with his career as a General in Takshashila and ends with the bloody conquest of the Kalinga.

Emperor Chandragupta Maurya, grandfather of Asoka, of the Maurya empire, has decided to embrace Jainism and abdicate the throne of the empire in favour of his son Bindusara. But his grandson, Prince Asoka, claims his sword. The old emperor explains that this sword is evil, and the sword demands blood and destruction.

A few years later, Prince Asoka, now a brave youth, is battling the rebellious chief of Taxila for his Emperor and father. He figures that his elder half-brother Susima Maurya, who also has an eye on the throne of the empire, has deliberately withheld reinforcements from arriving, but defeats the enemy nevertheless. Asoka returns to the capital victorious and confronts Susima. Later, Susima tries to assassinate Asoka while he is bathing. The fight among the princes makes the Emperor unhappy, and he orders Empress Dharma to control her son Asoka. She compels Asoka to temporarily leave the capital to lead the life of a common person. The Prince is disappointed but leaves nonetheless.

Asoka, alone and disguised as an ordinary traveller, rides to the south. In his travels, he meets a lovely maiden, Kaurwaki and falls in love with her. He also develops a good relationship with her little brother Arya. They are on the run from the Kingdom of Kalinga along with their faithful protector Bheema and are being chased by soldiers of the Kingdom. After saving their lives, Asoka introduces himself as Pawan, hiding his true identity. Kaurwaki and Arya are the Princess and Prince of Kalinga, who fled from their kingdom when the Prime Minister assassinated their parents and took over power. Later, Asoka and Kaurwaki get secretly married.

Soon, Asoka is summoned by his mother, who sent a messenger to tell him she has fallen ill and to come to the capital. The Emperor dispatches Asoka to quell a rebellion in Ujjaini. Before marching to the west, Asoka travels to Kalinga to meet Kaurwaki and Arya. Unable to find them, and not knowing they have gone into hiding, he is informed by General Bheema that they were slaughtered. A heartbroken Asoka attempts suicide but is saved by Virat, who later swears to protect him. Mad with grief and anger, Asoka leads a brutal crackdown in Ujjaini. The assassins sent by Susima injure Asoka in a battle, and Virat saves him. He is taken to a Buddhist monastery at Vidisa to recover.

There, he meets a Buddhist maiden, Devi, who cares for him. Asoka also survives another assassination attempt at Vidisa, this time with the help of Devi. Asoka marries Devi and returns in splendour to Pataliputra. Susima and his brothers are wild with anger from their futile attempts to eliminate Asoka. Emperor Bindusara, who favoured Susima over Asoka, becomes ill and dies. In another vigilante attack, Queen Dharma is stabbed to death by assassins sent by Susima. Angered, Asoka wants to kill Susima but has second thoughts, and Susima is killed by Virat when he tries to kill Asoka behind his back and is appointed emperor.

A few months later, princess Kaurwaki and prince Arya return to Kalinga with Bheema and have the Prime Minister executed for treason. Asoka declares war on Kalinga, not knowing that Kaurwaki is alive. Kaurwaki still does not know that Asoka is Pawan, and both sides prepare for war.

A terrible war is fought in Kalinga. The Maurya army inflicts a crushing defeat on Kalinga. Not content with the mere victory, Maurya soldiers butcher everyone in sight. General Bheema is killed after failing to assassinate Asoka realizing that he is Pawan and Kaurwaki is wounded. Asoka later visits the battlefield, where he discovers his horse, who was supposed to be in Kaurwaki's possession. With a surge of hope, he frantically searches for Kaurwaki and finds her. They have a heart-to-heart talk, and he apologises deeply for his actions. He is interrupted by Arya, who is dying after being pierced with arrows. With Arya dying in his arms, Asoka suddenly realises that his enemies, his family, and even Arya, are all dead because of him. His grandfather's warning about the sword had been correct.

The film ends with Asoka throwing the sword into the water at the same spot as his grandfather, and embracing Buddhism. The final narrative describes how Asoka not only built a large empire but spread Buddhism and the winds of peace throughout the empire.

Cast
As per the film's opening credits:

Historical accuracy
"Asoka had embraced Buddhism long before the Kaling War, and yet, as far as historical accuracy is concerned, there's a surprising result: though the whole Pawan/Kaurwaki episode is fantasy, the film mostly avoids messing around with the known facts", wrote historian Alex von Tunzelmann. There is also no historical evidence of a queen ruling Kalinga at the time of Asoka's invasion. The film also does not depict Ashoka's love for Devi. The film also explicitly suggests Kalinga as a democracy.

Production
"I was dancing in a train for a song in a movie ("Chaiyya Chaiyya" on the sets of Mani Ratnam's Dil Se..) that Santosh Sivan was lensing, and he came up to me between shots and told me about Asoka," says Shah Rukh Khan. "I could only understand half of what he said but I could see the determination in his eyes, and that, somehow or other, he would make it with or without me. That's 80% of the battle won. I was hooked."

The director, along with the principal costume designer Anu Vardhan, started working on the project two years before they started the actual shooting of the film. Though Vardhan agrees that there was no concept of wearing vests during that era, certain cinematic liberties had been taken because Shahrukh did not wanted to shoot shirtless throughout the film. "After all, it is a mainstream commercial film. During Shah Rukh's forest sequences, he wears square pieces of a blanket-like-material, folded into two and cut in between, to pass around the neck. Another piece of cloth was tried around his waist, acting as a belt. There was no stitching involved." Anu explains, "While researching for the film, we discovered that body art was a prominent part of that time. For the character of Kaurwaki (Kareena), we used different designs of tattoos." The armours and shields are worn by the artistes also form an important part of the costume for the final war sequences. Metal jackets composed of special fibre glass were made for around 4000 members of the cast. "These metal jackets are extremely light and comfortable and were made in Madras by more than 50 workers," she explains.

"I also tried to give the different parts of the film different looks: for example when the viewer is taken to Magadha (Bihar), the temples and houses have been made using black granite while when we are in Kalinga (Orissa) I have used brown sandstone and earth tones to generate a different feel. Also I worked with only six pillars in the film, it is hard to imagine that once you see the film", says Sabu Cyril.

The film was shot at various locations, such as Panchmarhi (the bulk of the romance between Asoka and the princess), Maheshwar (the palace intrigues of Pataliputra), Madhya Pradesh, Jaipur (battle scenes), Igatpuri and Bhubaneswar (the Kalinga portions). More than half the film was shot indoors on the studio floors of Film City and Filmistan. The elaborate final battle scene (the battle fought against the Kalingas) employed over six thousand extras and hundreds of elephants. Some of the actors portraying warriors in the film were masters of Kalari, who used their expertise. They were the only ones to use real weapons in the filming. The song "Raat Ka Nasha" was picturised at Bhedaghat and Panchmarhi in Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh amidst the Narmada River.

The film is also known for using minimal special effects. While Lagaan was made at considerable expense, Asoka had only a moderate budget. Sivan says he didn't want any special effects, and no digitally augmented crowds. Priyanka Chopra turned down the offer to appear in a song in the film.

Soundtrack
The songs of the movie were composed by Anu Malik. Initially, A. R. Rahman was signed in to compose the film's music, but for reasons unknown, he opted out. Malik stepped in to compose the songs, while Sandeep Chowta was brought on board to for the background score. Gulzar wrote the lyrics for five songs, while one song was written by Anand Bakshi ("San Sanana"). The soundtrack was very successful and according to the Indian trade website Box Office India, with around 15,00,000 units sold, the album was one of the year's the highest-selling.

India
It opened on 26 October 2001, across 235 screens, and earned inr 10000000 nett on its opening day. It grossed inr 28700000 nett in its opening weekend, and had a first week of inr 52600000 nett. The film earned a total of inr 115399999.99999999 nett. It is the 13th-highest-grossing film of 2001 in India.

International
It had an opening weekend of $800,000 (₹3.84 crore) and went on to gross $1.07 million (₹5.13 crore) in its first week. The film earned a total of $1.8 million (₹8.64 crore) at the end of its theatrical run. Overseas, It is the 4th-highest-grossing film of 2001.

Critical reception
Aśoka was critically acclaimed upon release. Peter Bradshaw of The Guardian called the film "a big, brash and deeply enjoyable Bollywood epic". He stated, "This movie's narrative gusto, its intricate, indirect eroticism – no sex, or even kissing – its lavish musical numbers and its sheer self-belief are a treat."

Neil Smith described the film; "with elements of both Gandhi (1982) and Braveheart (1995), Asoka is a big, sprawling epic that looks every rupee it took to bring it to the screen." However, BBC's Santosh Sinha noted, "It is at this point in the film [when the prince go into hiding as per the request of the mother Queen] that Asoka is temporarily lost and Shahrukh Khan the actor takes over. He meets Princess Kaurwaki in the forest and then chases her around in a typically Bollywood way. He [Khan] is also less convincing when, grieved by the loss of life in Kalinga, he renounces violence and vows to spread the message of peace far and wide. This comes across as melodramatic. Bollywood style, Asoka finds Kaurwaki and the young Prince Arya of Kalinga on the battlefield. Prince Arya manages a dying speech before he keels over and that breaks Asoka completely." Journalist, editor and film trade analyst Taran Adarsh wrote that "director Santosh Sivan has chosen a historical subject, but added his spice and come up with a fairytale kind of a flick. As a cinematographer, Santosh Sivan's work is flawless."

The portrayal of Asoka in the film proved controversial in India. "Shahrukh's Asoka is all bluster and mannerism, with no depth. Except for the nosebleeds and the mudbaths, he is the same Shahrukh of every other movie that he has acted in. The film leaves its many complex moments unexplored and disjointed, choosing to pitch it as a love story instead of an epic tale of war and peace," an Indian reviewer wrote.

Variety's David Rooney states, "a sprawling widescreen historical epic laced with Bollywood musical numbers, melodramatic romance, spectacular locations and violent battle scenes. Coming on the heels of Ashutosh Gowariker's Lagaan: Once Upon a Time in India, Asoka provides further evidence that Bollywood is poised for wider commercial impact beyond its already substantial established niche. And while the ambling, uneconomical nature of popular Indian storytelling makes major crossover business unlikely in this case, some degree of general art-house attention appears indicated. Khan cuts a dashing figure as a soulful hunk in the traditional Bollywood mould. At the same time, Kapoor plays ornately tattooed Kaurwaki as a lively mix of flirtatious coquette and feisty warrior woman, kind of like Jennifer Lopez meets Michelle Yeoh." Empire praised the movie gave it 4 out of 5 stars. It states,"Santosh Sivan may just be the man who provides that elusive Indian crossover hit with this rip-roaring historical adventure. The fact that Asoka was such a bloody warrior is no more ably demonstrated than when the battle scenes kick in near the end, it's like Akira Kurosawa goes Bollywood."

Critics generally praised the cinematography of Santosh Sivan.

Miniseries
StarPlus launched an extended miniseries version of the film, split into five episodes from 28 May 2002 to 25 June 2002.

title: Asoka (2001 film)