text:
Horn (anatomy)

A horn is a permanent pointed projection on the head of various animals that consists of a covering of keratin and other proteins surrounding a core of live bone. Horns are distinct from antlers, which are not permanent. In mammals, true horns are found mainly among the ruminant artiodactyls, in the families Antilocapridae (pronghorn) and Bovidae (cattle, goats, antelope etc.). Cattle horns arise from subcutaneous connective tissue (under the scalp) and later fuse to the underlying frontal bone.

One pair of horns is usual; however, two or more pairs occur in a few wild species and in some domesticated breeds of sheep. Polycerate (multi-horned) sheep breeds include the Hebridean, Icelandic, Jacob, Manx Loaghtan, and the Navajo-Churro.

Horns usually have a curved or spiral shape, often with ridges or fluting. In many species, only males have horns. Horns start to grow soon after birth and continue to grow throughout the life of the animal (except in pronghorns, which shed the outer layer annually, but retain the bony core). Partial or deformed horns in livestock are called scurs. Similar growths on other parts of the body are not usually called horns, but spurs, claws, or hooves, depending on the part of the body on which they occur.

Other hornlike growths
The term "horn" is also popularly applied to other hard and pointed features attached to the head of animals in various other families:

 * Giraffidae: Giraffes have one or more pairs of bony bumps on their heads, called ossicones. These are covered with furred skin.
 * Cervidae: Most deer have antlers, which are not true horns and made of bone. When fully developed, antlers are dead bone without a horn or skin covering; they are borne only by adults (usually males, except for reindeer) and are shed and regrown each year.
 * Rhinocerotidae: The "horns" of rhinoceroses are made of keratin, the same substance as fingernails, and grow continuously, but do not have a bone core.
 * Chamaeleonidae: Many chameleons, most notably the Jackson's chameleon, possess horns on their skulls, and have a keratin covering.
 * Ceratopsidae: The "horns" of the Triceratops were extensions of its skull bones, although debate exists over whether they had a keratin covering.
 * Abelisauridae: Various abelisaurid theropods, such as Carnotaurus and Majungasaurus possessed extensions of the frontal bone which were likely covered in some form of keratinous integument.
 * Horned lizards (Phrynosoma): These lizards have horns on their heads which have a hard keratin covering over a bony core, like mammalian horns.
 * Insects: Some insects (such as rhinoceros beetles) have hornlike structures on the head or thorax (or both). These are pointed outgrowths of the hard chitinous exoskeleton.  Some (such as stag beetles) have greatly enlarged jaws, also made of chitin.
 * Canidae: Golden jackals were once thought to occasionally develop a horny growth on the skull, which is associated with magical powers in south-eastern Asia. Although no evidence of its existence has been found, it remains a common belief in South Asia.
 * Azendohsauridae: the skull of the triassic azendohsaurid archosauromorph Shringasaurus possessed two massive, forward-facing conical horns, which were likely covered in cornified sheaths in life.
 * Anhimidae: The horned screamer possesses an entirely keratinous spine, which is loosely connected to its skull.

Many mammal species in various families have tusks, which often serve the same functions as horns, but are in fact oversized teeth. These include the Moschidae (Musk deer, which are ruminants), Suidae (Wild Boars), Proboscidea (Elephants), Monodontidae (Narwhals) and Odobenidae (Walruses). Polled animals or pollards are those of normally-horned (mainly domesticated) species whose horns have been removed, or which have not grown. In some cases such animals have small horny growths in the skin where their horns would be – these are known as scurs.

On humans
Cutaneous horns are the only examples of horns growing on people.

Cases of people growing horns have been historically described, sometimes with mythical status. Researchers have not however discovered photographic evidence of the phenomenon. There are human cadaveric specimens that show outgrowings, but these are instead classified as osteomas or other excrescences.

The phenomenon of humans with horns has been observed in countries lacking advanced medicine. There are living people, several in China, with cases of cutaneous horns, most common in the elderly.

Some people, notably The Enigma, have horn implants; that is, they have implanted silicone beneath the skin as a form of body modification.

Animal uses of horns
Animals have a variety of uses for horns and antlers, including defending themselves from predators and fighting members of their own species (horn fighting) for territory, dominance or mating priority. Horns are usually present only in males but in some species, females too may possess horns. It has been theorized by researchers that taller species living in the open are more visible from longer distances and more likely to benefit from horns to defend themselves against predators. Female bovids that are not hidden from predators due to their large size or open savannahlike habitat are more likely to bear horns than small or camouflaged species.

In addition, horns may be used to root in the soil or strip bark from trees. In animal courtship many use horns in displays. For example, the male blue wildebeest reams the bark and branches of trees to impress the female and lure her into his territory. Some animals such as goats with true horns use them for cooling with the blood vessels in the bony core allowing them to function as a radiator.

After the death of a horned animal, the keratin may be consumed by the larvae of the horn moth.

Human uses of horns

 * Horned animals are sometimes hunted so their mounted head or horns can be displayed as a hunting trophy or as decorative objects.
 * Some cultures use bovid horns as musical instruments, for example, the shofar. These have evolved into brass instruments in which, unlike the trumpet, the bore gradually increases in width through most of its length—that is to say, it is conical rather than cylindrical. These are called horns, though now made of metal.
 * Drinking horns are bovid horns removed from the bone core, cleaned, polished, and used as drinking vessels. (This is similar to the legend of the cornucopia.) It has been suggested that the shape of a natural horn was also the model for the rhyton, a horn-shaped drinking vessel.
 * Powder horns were originally bovid horns fitted with lids and carrying straps, used to carry gunpowder. Powder flasks of any material may be referred to as powder horns.
 * Shoehorns were originally made from slices of bovid horn, which provided the right curving shape and a smooth surface.
 * Antelope horns are used in traditional Chinese medicine.
 * Horns consist of keratin, and the term "horn" is used to refer to this material, sometimes including similarly solid keratin from other parts of animals, such as hoofs. Horn may be used as a material in tools, furniture and decoration, among other uses. In these applications, horn is valued for its hardness, and it has given rise to the expression hard as horn. Horn is somewhat thermoplastic and (like tortoiseshell) was formerly used for many purposes where plastic would now be used. Horn may be used to make glue.
 * Horn bows are bows made from a combination of horn, sinew and usually wood. These materials allow more energy to be stored in a short bow than wood alone.
 * Horns and horn tips from various animals have been used for centuries in the manufacture of scales, grips, or handles for knives and other weapons, and beginning in the 19th century, for the handle scales of handguns.
 * Horn buttons may be made from horns, and historically also hooves which are a similar material. The non-bony part of the horn or hoof may be softened by heating to a temperature just above the boiling point of water, then molded in metal dies, or the hollow lower part of the horn may be slit spirally lengthwise and then flattened in a vise between wood boards, again after heating, and later cut with a holesaw or similar tool into round or other shaped blanks which are finished on a lathe or by hand. Toggle buttons are made by cutting off the solid tips of horns and perforating them. Antler buttons, and buttons made from hooves are not technically horn buttons, but are often referred to as such in popular parlance. Horns from cattle, water buffalo, and sheep are all used for commercial button making, and of other species as well, on a local and non-commercial basis.
 * Horn combs were common in the era before replacement by plastic, and are still made.
 * Horn needle cases and other small boxes, particularly of water buffalo horn, are still made. One occasionally finds horn used as a material in antique snuff boxes.
 * Horn strips for inlaying wood are a traditional technique.
 * Carved horn hairpins and other jewelry such as brooches and rings are manufactured, particularly in Asia, including for the souvenir trade.
 * Horn is used in artwork for small, detailed carvings. It is an easily worked and polished material, is strong and durable, and in the right variety, beautiful.
 * Horn chopsticks are found in Asian countries from highland Nepal and Tibet to the Pacific coast. Typically they are not the common material, but rather are higher quality decorative articles. Similarly other horn flatware, notably spoons, continues to be manufactured for decorations and other purposes.
 * Long dice made of horn that have a rodlike elongated shape with four numbered faces and two small unnumbered end faces continue to be manufactured in Asia where they are traditionally used in games like Chaupar (Pachisi) and many others.
 * Horn is sometimes found in walking sticks, cane handles, and shafts. In the latter use, the horn elements may be cut into short cylindrical segments held together by a metal core.
 * Horned deities appear in various guises across many world religions and mythologies.
 * Horned helmets arise in different cultures, for ritual purposes rather than combat.
 * Horns were treated and cut into strips to make semi-transparent windows in the vernacular architecture of the Medieval Ages.

Dehorning
In some instances, wildlife parks may decide to remove the horn of some animals (such as rhinos) as a preventive measure against poaching. Animal horns can be safely sawn off without hurting the animal (it is similar to clipping toe nails). When the animal were to be poached, the animal is generally killed as it is shot first. Park rangers however may decide to tranquilize the animal instead to remove the horn.

title: Horn (anatomy)


text:
Samuel Lloyd

Samuel or Sam Lloyd may refer to:

 * Samuel T. Lloyd III (born 1950), dean of Washington National Cathedral
 * Sam Lloyd (1963–2020), American actor and singer
 * Sam Lloyd (footballer) (born 1990), Australian rules footballer for Western Bulldogs, formerly for Richmond

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

title: Samuel Lloyd


text:
Atelinae

The Atelinae are a subfamily of New World monkeys in the family Atelidae, and includes the various spider and woolly monkeys. The primary distinguishing feature of the atelines is their long prehensile tails, which can support their entire body weight.

Atelines live on the American continent from southern Mexico through central Brazil and Bolivia. Diurnal and arboreal, they move speedily and acrobatically through the trees using their tails. Atelines, along with the related howler monkeys, are the largest of the New World monkeys. They live in groups, show amicable intergroup relations, and can coalesce into large aggregations for extended periods of time.

Atelines are frugivore-folivores, their diet consisting primarily of fruits, seeds and leaves, with Ateles being the most frugivorous, fruits comprising over 80% of their diet. Those species relying most heavily on patchily distributed fruit trees have the largest ranges. These animals are characterized by a slow reproduction rate: females only bear young once every two to four years. Many species are hunted for their meat, and the destruction of their habitat likewise endangers them; the spider monkey already stands at the edge of extermination.

Extant taxa

 * Family Atelidae: howler, spider and woolly monkeys
 * Subfamily Alouattinae
 * Subfamily Atelinae
 * Genus Ateles: spider monkeys
 * Genus Brachyteles: muriquis (woolly spider monkeys)
 * Genus Lagothrix: woolly monkeys

Prehistoric taxa

 * Subfamily Atelinae
 * Genus Stirtonia
 * Stirtonia tatacoensis
 * Stirtonia victoriae
 * Genus Protopithecus
 * Protopithecus brasiliensis
 * Genus Caipora
 * Caipora bambuiorum
 * Genus Solimoea
 * Solimoea acrensis

title: Atelinae


text: Talk:Atelinae

title: Talk:Atelinae


text:
Horn (diacritic)

The horn (dấu móc or dấu râu) is a diacritic mark attached to the top right corner of the letters o and u in the Vietnamese alphabet to give ơ and ư, unrounded variants of the vowel represented by the basic letter. In Vietnamese, they are rarely considered as diacritics; but rather, the characters ơ and ư are considered as different letters from o and u.

Letters with horn
Ơơ · Ớớ · Ờờ · Ởở · Ỡỡ · Ợợ · Ưư · Ứứ · Ừừ · Ửử · Ữữ · Ựự

Encodings
In Unicode, horn is encoded as a combining mark, and precomposed letters.

Precombined characters in Unicode and HTML codes: and

title: Horn (diacritic)


text:
Talk:Staten Island Ferry

Question

 * Almost certainly not the Staten Island Ferry. By 1941 the municipal ferries were well into double-deckers, diesel powered. That ferry has just left its docking, looks like, and that it is probably the Jersey shore behind. Probably not a Lackawanna ferry--they were huge. The name of the ferry appears to be "Edgewater." I'd say Erie or Jersey Central. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 16:40, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * "Edgewater" identifies it as the 125th Street Ferry that ran from pre-World War I and closed in the winter of 1950-51. It is just leaving its Manhattan slip: those are the Palisades across the river. I rode it a couple of times as a child.--Wetman 21:02, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * This was part of the Public Service Corporation of New Jersey, right? If so, I'm going to add it there (after changing the name). --SPUI (talk) 22:26, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * That I don't know. Surely the ferry predated the Corporation's founding. A sailing ferry at the site existed in the early 19th century. --Wetman 23:01, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Yeah, looks like it was run by the New Jersey and Hudson River Railway, which merged into PS. It may have existed separately before that. --SPUI (talk) 20:44, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * HERE's what the staten island ferry looked like in 1942, same type of boat as today, orange colored, with the logo "Department of marine and aviation" emblazoned on the side
 * (photo) http://webapp1.dlib.indiana.edu/cushman/results/detail.do?query=state%3A%22New+York%22+AND+city%3A%22New+York%22&page=4&pagesize=20&display=thumbcap&action=browse&pnum=P11561
 * Lucky dog (talk) 03:02, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Travel time
Could someone please indicate at the beginning of the article the time required for a trip? Thanks! Psychonaut 19:23, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
 * It is approximately 25 minutes each way. It is actually already in the article, in the second section. -- Decumanus 19:39, 2005 May 8 (UTC)

Fare
In Bob Dylan's song Hard Days in New York, he sings something like "if you've only got a nickel, it's the Staten Island Ferry", which I always took to be the fare at the time. The article says it started at a quarter. Can any historian help me on this? Ringbark 08:16, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * The Staten Island Ferry was a nickel each way for as long as I could remember (from 1950s on). You had to get off at each terminal, i.e., you couldn't ride endlessly. You also could buy a commuter ticket on the Staten Island Rapid Transit, which included your ferry fare. The fare was famous but it covered very little of the cost, which was cited in the '60s (IIRC) as being 50 cents, so the "farebox recovery ratio," as it was called was only 10%. It guess it was during the fiscal crisis that the fare went up to 25 cents for a round trip; i.e., the fare was only collected one way, so it was really 12-1/2 cents. Then (I think under Giuliani) they gave up collecting the fare at all since it covered so little of the cost, and just made it free. -- Cecropia 09:05, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Close -- Actually, under Guiliani, they dropped the fare when they instututed "one fare" zones on mass transit. Which means, in part, if you pay a fare on one form of transit like a bus, you don't have to pay to transfer to another form such as a subway. The vast majority of people taking the ferry are transferring from or to a bus or subway, so to institute the one fare policy, they would in effect be collecting no fare from most of the users. They decided it would be too expensive to collect from the tourists and a few SI'ers who only take the ferry. EGregory 14:11, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

 * This is a very interesting point! It should be on the article itself. The mention that the ferry is free, like virtually nothing in New York, but then not explaining it, is a glaring omission. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nyh (talk • contribs) 13:02, 22 January 2007 (UTC).

 * I remember reading on the MTA site that you can transfer from a 1. Staten Island bus to the 2. SIR to the 3. ferry to the 4. subway in Manhattan and possibly 5. to a bus later on all for one fare. Jason McHuff 03:51, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Westfield disaster
The Northfield disaster is mentioned in this artice, but there's no mention of the 19th century Westfield inicident, which was the worst Staten Island Ferry disaster in history. I believe the death toll was around 165 with hundreds scalded when the boiler of this steam ferry exploded. EGregory 17:20, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Done. -- Cecropia 09:50, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Nice write-up. Thanks, EGregory 16:55, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

The words "...though he escaped conviction" are loaded, as if you mean to suggest that Vanderbilt was actually guilty. If that's the intent, the posting should be clarified. If it's not the intent, I would change to something like "...but was eventually acquitted." 160.254.20.253 (talk) 17:37, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Updated Classes of Ferries
I recently updated the section of classes of ferries now that all three Molinari-class vessels are in operation. I also merged a later paragraph, which was outdates and in future tense into the ferry descriptions. The following line "The Marine Group also will build two similar-sized boats." was part of that graph. I am not familiar with this info, but since I don't know that it's innacurate, I did not delete. If anyone can verify, please do. (By the way, does anyone else fing the phrase "Molinari Class" to be an oxymoron?) EGregory 15:09, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Funny Girl on Ferry?
Is there a scene in Funny Girl on the Staten Island Ferry, or does Barbara Streisand's character just appear on a tug boat in the harbor? If so, it should be added. Digit LeBoid 18:52, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

In the movie, the Fannie Brice character played by Ms Streisand was trying to catch the cruise ship Nicky Arnstein was on, so she would have been at one of the west side ship docks, not the South Ferry terminal. When she realizes she's missed the boat (to coin a phrase), she gets a tug boat to carry her out to the ship. The Staten Island Ferry was not involved.160.254.20.253 (talk) 17:43, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Proposed Updates: Music, Vessel-Based History Table, Terminal Fire and Student History
I'd like to propose four additions to this page:

1) "The ferry in music" would be great, either as a subsection, or just merging it with the film and television section. Someone mentioned the Dylan reference.  Billy Joel also makes a reference in his song "Everybody Loves You Now", iirc.  I'm sure there are others.

2) A table of history by the vessel would be a great addition, I think, with an eye toward eliminating redundancy. I'd like to simply show every ferry vessel known about, year built, commissioned and decommissioned (if any), and eventual fate.  References to incidents or other bits of notes as internal links would also be nice.

3) I'd like to add the Manhattan terminal fire of the mid 90s to the incidents list. It was really a sad loss of a lot of architectural history, and i believe it noteworthy.

4) Finally, the ferry plays a special role in the lives of middle- and high-school students that commute between the Island the Manhattan. I'd like to start a section to seed additions in this area, such as historical "sections" where students would meet, and similar.  If no one adds to it, we can always let it atrophy and delete it.

Thoughts, anyone? I'm very open to feedback.

An Earthshine 03:33, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

 * RE: 4) -- Perhaps instead of just a section on the high schoolers, perpaps a section on sub-cultures of the ferry. The high-schoolers are just one group.  There are the women who congregated in the Ladies room and formed their own clique that was featured in a short film.  There are the babooska-ed ladies who commute to their after-hours jobs (I believe as cleaning ladies in Manhattan), cyclists, messengers, buskers, tourists, vendors (the shine guys and the pushcart guy with the "little shopping mall", the folks who congregated at the old bar... Digit LeBoid 19:16, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

 * RE: your note -- Absolutely! I think this is a great generalization of my idea that would be a much better addition to the article, allowing for a wide variety of items.  Thanks! An Earthshine 03:48, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

propose moving the 2003 Barberi accident into the history section and expanding it
this was a significant incident and should deserve a bit more info as to what happened, the players involved, what happened afterwards (lawsuits, policy changes like people not allowed too close on the forward deck, the asst capt tryign to commit suicide), etc. Lucky dog (talk) 16:01, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Number of ferries
The article says there are nine ferries in 4 classes. However, the ferries listed as currently operated are the John F. Kennedy, the Andrew J. Barberi, the Samuel I. Newhouse, the Alice Austen, the John A. Noble, the Guy Molinari, the John J. Marchi and the Spirit of America. That is eight, not nine. Can someone please clarify?Avman89 (talk) 07:40, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Somebody should add more images of the "Gov. Herbert H. Lehman," from 1965. -User:DanTD (talk) 05:26, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Staten Island Ferries with cars

 * How come they don't carry cars anymore for the Staten Island Ferries? Why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.118.238.70 (talk) 02:14, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * post 9-11 safety...Daniel32708 (talk) 20:57, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Main Image Too Big
The main image on the article page (in the info box on right) is way too big - some 250x210 pixels!

Can someone please correct this.

Thanks.

--Raghuveer 03:32, 30 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raghuveer.v (talk • contribs)

Most reliable form of transportation
The article says that "The Staten Island Ferry is the most reliable form of mass transit". Among what is it the most reliable? Among all public transportation modes in the city? Please correct. I don't know what this is supposed to mean. Level Crossing (talk) 21:00, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Edited this out for now. Level Crossing (talk) 00:27, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Staten Island Ferry Disaster Memorial Museum
This is a one-line stub, about a hoax no less. It would be more visible if posted on the Staten Island Ferry page. epicgenius (talk) 03:22, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I created the stub after finding several sources on the subject. If the topic passes Wikipedia's notability criteria, I suggest we keep the standalone article and encourage its expansion. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 03:28, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 * That is reasonable. I merged it because the other article on the hoax was a single sentence, but I'm fine with expanding that other article. epicgenius (talk) 03:30, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Staten Island Ferry. 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/20170920044950/https://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/20170630/st-george/staten-island-ferry-history-spider-man-homecoming-orange-prison-civil-war to https://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/20170630/st-george/staten-island-ferry-history-spider-man-homecoming-orange-prison-civil-war
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170929092647/https://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/20170711/st-george/staten-island-ferry-routes-nyc-ferry to https://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/20170711/st-george/staten-island-ferry-routes-nyc-ferry
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170926041938/https://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/20170418/st-george/fast-ferry-st-george-to-midtown-borough-president-james-oddo-ny-waterways to https://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/20170418/st-george/fast-ferry-st-george-to-midtown-borough-president-james-oddo-ny-waterways
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170929045032/https://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/20170927/tottenville/south-shore-ferry-to-manhattan to https://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/20170927/tottenville/south-shore-ferry-to-manhattan
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170919230002/https://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/20170919/st-george/staten-island-ferry-ridership-numbers to https://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/20170919/st-george/staten-island-ferry-ridership-numbers

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) 18:06, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:36, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * 8097512086 f13a66c6de o colorcorrections.jpg

title: Talk:Staten Island Ferry


text:
Dextrorphan

Dextrorphan (DXO) is a psychoactive drug of the morphinan class which acts as an antitussive or cough suppressant and in high doses a dissociative hallucinogen. It is the dextrorotatory enantiomer of racemorphan; the levorotatory enantiomer is levorphanol. Dextrorphan is produced by O-demethylation of dextromethorphan by CYP2D6. Dextrorphan is an NMDA antagonist and contributes to the psychoactive effects of dextromethorphan.

Pharmacodynamics
The pharmacology of dextrorphan is similar to that of dextromethorphan (DXM). However, dextrorphan is much more potent as an NMDA receptor antagonist as well much less active as a serotonin reuptake inhibitor, but retains DXM's activity as a norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor. It also has more affinity for the opioid receptors than dextromethorphan, significantly so at high doses.

Pharmacokinetics
Dextrorphan has a notably longer elimination half-life than its parent compound, and therefore has a tendency to accumulate in the blood after repeated administration of normally dosed dextromethorphan formulations. It is further converted to 3-HM by CYP3A4 or glucuronidated.

Legal status
Dextrorphan was formerly a Schedule I controlled substance in the United States, but was unscheduled on October 1, 1976.

Research
Dextrorphan was under development for the treatment of stroke, and reached phase II clinical trials for this indication, but development was discontinued.

Environmental presence
In 2021, dextrorphan was identified in >75% of sludge samples taken from 12 wastewater treatment plants in California. The same study associated dextrorphan with estrogenic activity by using predictive modelling, before observing it in in vitro.

title: Dextrorphan


text:
Wikipedia talk:No original research (draft rewrite 5th December 2004 to 5th February 2005)

Wider review
Are we ready to open this up to wider review, such as via RFC and the Village Pump? Maurreen 05:50, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Yes. Be careful how you frame the question, though — the question is not whether the draft rewrite is perfect (it almost certainly isn't, and there are many fine points that will continue to be debated), but whether it is a clear improvement over the existing policy page.  —Steven G. Johnson 01:20, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)

 * I think the draft we now have is fine for wider discussion. It addresses the question I raised back in the autum and now has a focused definition of what No Original Research actually means. I can't see anyone wanting to hang on to the original phrasing now. Apwoolrich 21:04, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Intro examples
I think the draft was better when it gave examples in the intro. Doing so made it more clear. Maurreen 07:53, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * Do you mean examples of sources? If so, I disagree, because the paragraph was mixing up (a) what sources may be used by editors and (b) what kind of source Wikipedia is. Also (c) these definitions are not the way I've used the terms, and I've been working for years in a business that relies on these distinctions, so if I'm finding it confusing, that suggests to me that others will too. I'd have taken it out altogether, but as a compromise, I shoved it down a bit, and changed the title to make clearer what it was saying. What do you think? I can suggest a good way to test what I'm saying. Isolate that paragraph; find a few honest editors, show them the paragraph; ask them not to look up the terms on Google, but just to say what the paragraph means to them. My guess is that no one will be much the wiser, if any, for having read it. SlimVirgin 08:48, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)

 * No, I mean this: "The phrase 'original research' in this context refers to untested theories; data, statements, concepts and ideas that have not been published in a reputable publication; or any new synthesis of published data, statements, concepts or ideas ..." Maurreen 09:04, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * Did I remove that? If so, I didn't mean to. I agree that it's a helpful description. SlimVirgin 19:42, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)

It was taken out a while ago; no biggie. I just put it back. Maurreen 05:05, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

On second thought
I think the examples can be tweaked, maybe like this: "The phrase 'original research' in this context can include untested theories; data, statements, concepts and ideas that have not been published in a reputable publication; or any new synthesis of published data, statements, concepts or ideas ..." Maurreen 06:10, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * "includes" is probably clearer than "can include" SlimVirgin 19:19, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)

 * I used "can" deliberately, although maybe imperfectly.
 * We had agreement earlier that unpublished but unchallenged statements could be acceptable.
 * I think theories can be in a different class than many statements. Also, this and the discussion below are somewhat related to the Slrubenstein's original distinction between scholarly topics and others. Maurreen 05:39, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * Can you give an example of an unpublished but unchallenged statement that would be acceptable? SlimVirgin 06:02, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)

They are further up this page, here. Maurreen 06:48, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * I'd be surprised if none of these statements had been published at some point somewhere, if they're true. If you leave a loophole allowing unpublished data to be used, unscrupulous editors will swim through it. That doesn't mean that every commonsense claim has to be sourced ("the sun will rise tomorrow"), but anything challenged does, and if challenged, the editor has to source it or remove it. "Can include" is unclear and introduces an unnecessary doubt. SlimVirgin 07:03, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)

Section about different kinds of sources
Sirubenstein, you put the sources section back in the intro. I strongly disagree with this, as it's largely meaningless, because it seems to confuse three things: (a) a general description of what historians regard as different categories of sources; (b) a description of what kind of sources Wikipedia editors ought to use; and (c) a description of what kind of source Wikipedia is. In addition, the first sentence is meaningless. What does: "More specifically, original research usually takes the form of primary sources or secondary sources" mean? It isn't correct English. "Research" doesn't "take the form of" sources. I would like to revert back to the previous version unless someone can explain. SlimVirgin 21:34, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * First, I honestly thought Maureen was objecting to your change, and you were agreeing with her. Second ... I don't understand your first point (or I just don't agree with you).  I do understand your second point though and I think it can be addressed more effectively by reweriting it rather than by moving the section lower. Slrubenstein 22:09, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It still makes no sense:

 * "Original research is research that relies on primary sources, and often relies on secondary sources. Primary sources present information or data, such as archeological artifacts; photographs; historical documents such as a diary, census, transcript of a public hearing, trial, or interview; tabulated results of surveys or questionnaires, records of laboratory assays or observations; records of field observations. Secondary sources present a generalization, analysis, synthesis, interpretation, or evaluation of information or data."

This means we're saying: (a) original research is not allowed; (b) original research is research that relies on e.g. photographs, historical documents such as a diary, and sources that present inter alia an analysis of information or data; ergo (c) none of (b) is allowed.

That rules out a lot of material that Wikipedia editors could use. For example, if a transcript of a court case is made available, you're saying Wikipedia can't refer to it. This section needs to go, because it's wrong and will cause a lot of confusion. Can you express what you want to say differently? As it stands, I honestly can't see what you mean.

"Original research" is simply material that has not been published in a reputable publication, with the qualification that the word "reputable" is not a precise term. It doesn't matter what kind of sources its based on. It could be based on primary, secondary or even tertiary sources. Anything that is (i) based on unpublished data; (ii) based on published data but analysed or synthesized in a novel way; or (iii) based on a disreputable or dodgy publication (e.g. the house journal of a fascist cult, except where discussion of what that cult believes is strictly relevant), is "original research". SlimVirgin 23:34, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)

 * I wholly agree with SlimVirgin's last paragraph. That is what we really mean! Perhaps it should be in the new version. The terms primary, secondary and tertiary source are terms taken from historiography, and are attempts to apply them to an encyclopedia is just creating needless problems. The intro needs to be simple and clear, and reference to historiography does not help. I'm reasonably happy that there be a section that explores this is issue with regard to the policy later in the article; but I'm not confident that section will ever become truly precise. :ChrisG 12:52, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"reputable" sources
The section entitled What counts as a reputable publication? goes far beyond the current principle of No original research, as I see it, in suggesting that Wikipedia as a whole discriminate among its sources on grounds of mass approval, editorial and administrative structure, et cetera. I disagree strongly with this principle in its current unqualified form. Why not keep the draft rewrite closer to the current guideline in scope, remove that section, and introduce use reputable sources as a separate proposed guideline for discussion in the policy thinktank? It might be more easily disentangled from the rest of the rewrite discussion that way. -- Rbellin|Talk 00:11, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * The business about editorial structure is just an example, Rbellin. The point is that "reputable" is impossible to define, but we can develop a series of intuitions about it by looking at examples. It does not mean minority views would automatically count as disreputable. It does mean that the publication must have attained some degree of public authority or public recognition. Otherwise, I could set up my own research company and website tonight -- SlimVirgin Research Associates -- and start quoting from it. So we do need SOME standard of evaluation of sources, and some way of describing that standard. Someone recently deleted that Israel was a parliamentary democracy, and when asked for a source, s/he produced a letter to the Guardian letters page. That's the kind of thing we need to make clear is not acceptable. What would you suggest as a way of describing what kind of sources should and should not be used? SlimVirgin 00:33, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)

I hold that the only important criterion for judging sources is relevance. The rest can be settled on a case-by-case basis just as Wikipedia has been doing for some time now; there is no urgent need for more codified rules, and the last thing I'd like would be for guidelines about "reputable" sources to scare off even one editor, or keep even one citation from being entered. This guideline seems like an overreaching attempt to make rules for every situation; it is my belief that Wikipedia thrives on openness, and that most of its problems are quite resistant to legislated solutions. (Also, the draft is quite unclear about what you call "just an example": that "ask yourself..." paragraph looks like a part of the guideline to me.)

POV pushers and cranks such as the one you mention above are certainly not going to be bothered by sourcing guidelines (and anyway, the NPOV version of that edit would have been to add "a Guardian letter-writer believed it not to be a democracy," not to delete the text). Go ahead and set up that research company web site, and try to cite it on Wikipedia; your citations will almost certainly be deleted as self-promotion, spam, or irrelevant -- unless they are useful and intelligent enough that they actually contribute value to Wikipedia as sources. The community already does a pretty good job of filtering out useless contributions; a more restrictive guideline will likely discourage some of the useful ones.

Further, I disagree that partisan, small, or independent sources are either "disreputable" or undesirable as sources (in all, or even most, cases). I do not believe Wikipedia should be in the business of assessing other organizations' reputability in the first place. And I find the specific examples in the draft distastefully suggestive of political litmus-testing, when relevance and the specific evidence produced in support of a claim are what matters. Again: if you want to introduce this as a guideline, I'd suggest you separate it from the "no original research" draft and let it be discussed in a separate place, where it can achieve or fail to achieve its own consensus. -- Rbellin|Talk 06:38, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * I agree about supporting the openness policy, and about not wanting to scare editors away. I disagree with your suggestion that, for example, the Guardian letters page thing could have been added as a citation. This editor wanted to remove from the introduction to the article on Israel that it is a parliamentary democracy. It's silly to cater to views like this when the sources offered include a letter to the Guardian and the rest weren't much better. Let me ask you this: What is the point of citing sources, in your view, if any source is acceptable? SlimVirgin 06:59, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)

 * Also, just to clarify, my reason for asking this is to find out what common ground there is between us: something we can agree on and then perhaps build on from there. SlimVirgin 07:33, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)

I think "any source is acceptable" -- in fact, anything (short of egregious antisociality) is acceptable -- is the greatest strength of Wikipedia; peer-editor review can correct many problems, and any citation at all is always, always better than none. I'm leaving the specific Israel example aside, as I think it's not quite to the point and don't want to get into a long side discussion.

The very most I'd be comfortable agreeing with as a general rule for all of Wikipedia would be something like: "Try to cite sources that are as widely available, relevant, and credible as possible." I have been thinking about this concern for a while, since I believe it's not a matter that a general rule can help with very much. I think "reputable" is a distraction from the issue: the most general question is is the source credible? -- and the guideline should never discourage citation. Instead, it should encourage citations that are as relevant and credible as possible; this means that we encourage citations from authors or publishers with (a) direct knowledge, (b) field expertise, or (c) stringent fact-checking policies, when such sources are available.

It is still my opinion that the best way to get a strong guideline on what kinds of sources are preferred over others would be to create a separate proposed guideline page and open it up for discussion. Lumping it in with the two very central pages on original research and citation means that the question gets jumbled up with many, many others. I have said enough by now; so feel free to take or discard my opinion on this, and I invite others to contribute theirs. -- Rbellin|Talk 05:44, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * I think it could be good to make this topic a separate page. Maurreen 06:07, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Rbellin, as this discussion is taking place on the Cite sources page where several other editors have joined in, I'm going to copy your comment onto that page too. Best, SlimVirgin 06:25, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Jallan
Wikipedia is not just a tertiary resource.

In my article on Hrafnkels saga I have a synopsis of the saga. How did I write it? I just read the saga myself and summarized it from there. This makes my synopsis a secondary resource on Hrafnkels saga. I don't see anything wrong with that.

Nor do I see any value in distinguishing sharply between scholarly and non-scholarly subjects.

Haukurth 15:43, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * Hi Haukurth, I believe the reference to Wikipedia as a tertiary source has been removed, unless someone has replaced it since I last checked. I agree with you: it's both a secondary and tertiary source. SlimVirgin 19:08, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)

 * I should qualify what I've just written: Regarding your Hraknkels saga, if you've merely summarized the contents, I personally don't see a problem with that. But if you've analysed it without reference to scholarly texts, then you're doing original research. If there are no scholarly texts, that's a different matter. In that area, you're unlikely to be challenged, but if an editor were to challenged your analysis (if you have provided one), and you could not justify it with reference to scholarly or other authoritative texts, the other editor could remove it. So the definition of Wikipedia as a secondary source does have to be qualified. When I call it a secondary source, I'm thinking more along the lines of quoting from a trial trancript, but without analysis. SlimVirgin 19:25, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)

 * Thanks for the clarification. -- Haukurth 20:37, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

how things stand
Do we have a plan about what we are doing? I know I haven't been active in the discussions, recently -- but I care very much about the work being done here. I happen to think the opening section is now very, very good. What are our priorities now, for finishing this?

I have a set of questions about the state of the discussion here, because sooner or latter (I think sooner) we should try to make this the new version.

(1) As SlimVirgin remarks, we have removed the stuff on "tertiary" sources. That term is used in the current active policy. Should we include something on tertiary in the opening? What should we say?

 * I would just as soon we didn't mention tertiary, only because primary and secondary cause a degree of confusion already; but if you can think of a very clear way of describing it, I'd have no problem with that. SlimVirgin 03:02, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)

(2) I have a reservation about this:
 * Statements not known to have been published elsewhere may be acceptable if they are not disputed. But if your edit is challenged, you must provide a reputable reference or delete the edit.

I think it opens up a can of worms. I think we should dump the first sentence and keep the second. People may still use unpublished things, but I don't want to put ideas in their heads, especially when the opening section is so clear.
 * I agree. SlimVirgin 03:02, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)

(2) I have a reservation about this:
 * Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It is not journalism. Wikipedia articles are not news reports, personal journals or weblogs. Wikipedia is not here to provide writers with a platform for their ideas.

I agree with it, but we do have a space for current affairs. I think we need to explain something about how that space works, so as not to confuse people. I also think a major problem here is some people who like to write personal essays, so maybe the stuff on no "personal journals, weblogs" etc. could be expanded.
 * The current affairs space is only allowed (as I understand it) to report on news reports. Editors there are not allowed to report the news themselves: as in, the president gets shot right next to my computer, and I type a description of the assassination straight into Wikipedia - not allowed, because it's original research, so the same rules apply. SlimVirgin 03:02, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)

I just think we should make this clearer in the draft. Do you have any ideas? I think you know more about journalism than I do and could come up with a clearer explanation of our policy. Slrubenstein 17:14, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

(3) The section on verifiability is very very long. I know some people disagree strongly with me, but I think that the section should be as short as possible with a link to the verification article. I absolutely agreed that these two are linked, I just don't think we should cram everything in here. Rather than trying to help people avoid actually going to thee verification policy page, here is my proposal: we finish this up, and then turn our attentions exclusively to the verification policy and see if (how) we can improve that one, next.
 * I like the section on verifiability because it goes to the heart of original research. Lots of editors understand "no original research" to mean that they're not supposed to submit one of their undergraduate essays or some such. But they don't get that they're not allowed to insert something just because they personally know it to be true. This came up a lot with the videos of the hostages who were beheaded. Several editors had watched the videos and wanted to say X and Y about them, even though these opinions had not been expressed anywhere in the mainstream press; but they couldn't understand why they weren't allowed to describe something they had actually watched. Same with the example I gave above. President gets shot and slumps into my personal lap: I'm still not allowed to mention it on Wikipedia until it hits the wires. So I feel this verifiability versus truth issue is an important epistemological distinction, and I don't believe the verifiability page mentions it, though Jimbo Wales has stressed it several times. This also came up frequently with the LaRouche editors: they kept writing "LaRouche supporters believe X, Y and Z", and they knew what they were talking about because they were referring to themselves, and therefore couldn't understand why I kept deleting and asking for a reference. If you feel we can improve the verifiability page, then by all means shorten the references to it on this one, but please not too short, because this may be the only page people read, and remember: this page is policy, but the verifiability page isn't. SlimVirgin 03:02, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)

As you know, I agree completely that verifiability is important. My point was purely structural. Well, we just have to agree to disagree. I would like to know what others think about this. And there is one thing I'd ask you to think about: are you saying that "verifiability" should not have its own page (that the concept is entirely subordinate to "no original research?" If this is not what you are saying, I encourage you to say more about what must be on this page, versus what must be on another policy page. Slrubenstein 17:14, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Basically, I see organizing this into four parts: the opening section; section two as kind of a tutorial helping newbies figure out what they should do. Okay, we have a list of what they shouldn't; can we give them models to encourage them in the right direction? I see the next three parts as very brief explanations of the two other policies I think bear most directly on this article: verification and NPOV -- a paragraph each with a link and a warning that going over those policies carefully will help them make sense of this one, and save them grief in the long run.

Thanks, Slrubenstein 23:00, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Contradiction
One thing is, these two statements seem to contradict each other.
 * "The phrase 'original research' in this context refers to untested theories; data, statements, concepts and ideas that have not been published in a reputable publication.
 * "Statements not known to have been published elsewhere may be acceptable if they are not disputed." Maurreen 07:17, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Uh, so you are agreeing with the point I made above? I made a specific proposal -- are you saying you support what I proposed? Slrubenstein 17:14, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * I think the second contradicts "no original research" and shouldn't be there anyway. It give me permisson to insert: "George Bush is a transexual" and leave it there until someone challenges it. SlimVirgin 07:27, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)

 * Anyone who writes "George Bush is a transexual" is unlikely to be stopped by any policy or guideline.
 * Definition of research, from Webster's New World College Dictionary, Fourth Edition:

 * n. "careful, systematic, patient study and investigation in some field of knowledge, undertaken to discover or establish facts or principles"
 * vi. "to do research; make researches"
 * vt. "to do research on or in; investigate thoroughly"
 * Thus, my view is that research, as minimum, is the deliberate seeking of knowledge. For one example, direct happenstance observation that people confuse soldiers with Marines is not research.
 * Slim, even if you and I were to agree on this issue, I doubt your strictness on the issue will fit in the Wikipedia culture. No hard feelings, I hope. Maybe we can just agree to disagree. And maybe it would be good for somebody else to weigh in on this, either way. Maurreen 07:59, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

My strictness on which issue? SlimVirgin 08:07, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)

I think the following is important, and we should bear it in mind regarding every policy and guideline we edit: SlimVirgin 08:20, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)
 * David Gerard wrote:
 * "Wikipedia is not primarily an experiment in Internet democracy. It's a project to write an encyclopedia."

 * Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales wrote:
 * "This should be printed out and handed to every single person on the planet. I think I'll start a new nonprofit organzation to do that. Wikimedia will give everyone an encyclopedia.  The new organization will give everyone a piece of paper explaining: it's an encyclopedia, not an experiment in democracy.

 * "We are a grand social experiment of course. But not primarily.

 * "Well said."

 * --Jimbo

Slrubenstein's proposal 2
I take it that you are referring to this:
 * "(2) I have a reservation about this:
 * 'Statements not known to have been published elsewhere may be acceptable if they are not disputed. But if your edit is challenged, you must provide a reputable reference or delete the edit.'
 * "I think it opens up a can of worms. I think we should dump the first sentence and keep the second. People may still use unpublished things, but I don't want to put ideas in their heads, especially when the opening section is so clear."

I would be OK with deleting the first sentence if the intro examples are tweaked. (And I realize I supported them earlier.)

The intro examples are now:
 * "The phrase 'original research' in this context refers to untested theories; data, statements, concepts and ideas that have not been published in a reputable publication; or any new interpretation, analysis, or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts or ideas that, in the words of Wikipedia's founder Jimbo Wales, would amount to a 'novel narrative or historical interpretation'.

Here's another example: U.S. Marines and soldiers both wear a camouflage uniform. It is very similar, but not the same. The uniform regulations for each service are documented, but I know of no published comparison. A strict interpretation of the above paragraph would mean that I couldn't write that the uniforms are different. Maurreen 17:39, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * If the uniform regulations are documented, then the differences between the uniforms have been published, unless there is only one piece of paper documenting those differences and no one apart from the author and his friends have ever seen it. :-) If an editor were to challenge you, you'd have to provide a source or delete the edit. Allowing people to use unpublished material opens a can of worms and contradicts the rest of the article. SlimVirgin 19:16, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)

Maurreen, I beg to differ. If one were to read only the first two sentences, they might think this, but if they keep reading they will see a statement that says something like "if no interpretive, synthetic etc. claims are made, original sources are enough" and it gives the apple pie example. You may think this could be reworded to be more direct, or that we provide more examples, or give other criteria, but currently the introduction does not say that primary sources are never allowed. Slrubenstein

 * My suggestion is to change "The phrase 'original research' in this context refers to ..." to "The phrase 'original research' in this context can include ..." I'm not saying that's perfect, but I can't think of anything better right now. Maurreen 07:33, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Why? Or, what's the difference?

 * What do you see as the important difference between "can include" and "refers to", Maurreen? SlimVirgin 08:37, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)

 * "Refers to" is equivalent to "is", or "A is B."
 * "Can include" more or less means "might be, or "Some of A is B." Maurreen 09:02, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I see that, but I'm wondering what you perceive the important difference to be. What difference will it make to you, in other words? SlimVirgin 09:28, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)

 * Wikipedia is aimed at "the sum of all human knowledge." And the general encouragement is to "write what you know."
 * A strict interpretation of the paragraph under discussion would mean "limit your writing to paraphrase or quote reputable publications."
 * I could refer to copy editing test X or Y, or Marine and Army uniforms.
 * But the paragraph says that not only can I not say anything that hasn't been said before, it must be said in whatever is deemed to be a reputable publication.
 * I read that as saying I can't make statements about the tests in general, I can't compare the uniforms, I can't make a simple statement that people confuse soldiers and Marines, if someone else has not written it before me. I expect that none of these statements would be disputed by anyone with moderate knowledge of the subjects.
 * These are just handy examples; they don't have any special meaning.
 * I understand and appreciate your intentions, and those of Slrubenstein. But maybe the strictness you seem to seek are not appropriate for all topics in Wikipedia, and maybe "no original reseach" can't be perfectly clarified (for instance, I know the information in the examples without performing any research). Maurreen 10:07, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * I take your point. But do you accept that you'd have to reference those edits or remove them if you were challenged? (If the uniform differences have been documented, that is publication.) The point is that this page must trumpet the standard. Of course, most edits are non-controversial and won't be challenged. But the policy page has to have excellence as its aim, no matter how far from that aim most editors will stray most of the time, myself included, and it must back up people who come here looking for support if they're in dispute with another editor who's doing original research. It can't allow loopholes for that reason, but that doesn't mean that people can't write "The sun will probably rise tomorrow" without a citation. SlimVirgin 10:22, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)

 * OK, I think we have agreement in principle.
 * Are you OK with changing "refers to" to "can include" or do you have a different suggestion? Maurreen 11:01, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * No, as I said above, this page has to uphold the standard and can't open any loopholes. "Refers to" is fine, it really is. SlimVirgin 11:46, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)

Confusing sentence
I can't work out what this sentence is saying: "Although it is our hope that readers research a variety of topics will turn to Wikipedia, one way that contributors to its articles can achieve a high level of quality is to draw on well-established previous research." SlimVirgin 07:36, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)
 * Beats me. My hypothesis: in the early days when the policy was first being formulated, many people tried to put their own formulas or rationales in the article (this is, alas, how some articles are still written -- instead of one article that many agree on, you have an article that really says the same thing ten times, because ten different editors liked their own way of saying the same thing). Slrubenstein 17:14, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Maybe I'll fiddle with that sentence a bit more then. Regarding your proposal, I should have made it clearer that I agree with you, though I have some reservations about reducing the verifiability section too much because people genuinely seem not to understand that issue, but by all means jump in and have a go at reducing it (but please be gentle with me). ;-)  SlimVirgin 19:20, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)
 * Oh, I really try to be gentle, usually! But honestly, I understood where you are coming from.  I can work on the section, but I am happy to give you first crack since you know what you think is the essense that has to be communicated.  I'll come back tomorrow and if you haven't done anything I will give it a shot ... Slrubenstein 22:16, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * I probably won't have done anything, as I'd tied up with matters LaRouchie. ;-) SlimVirgin 01:35, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)

I like your new sentence Sl. I still have a query about the second para though, particularly the first sentence:
 * Original research thus takes the form of primary sources and secondary sources. Primary sources present information or data, such as archeological artifacts; photographs; historical documents such as a diary, census, transcript of a public hearing, trial, or interview; tabulated results of surveys or questionnaires, records of laboratory assays or observations; records of field observations. Secondary sources present a generalization, analysis, synthesis, interpretation, or evaluation of information or data.

What do we mean by it taking the form of? Do we mean: "Original research can be based either on primary or secondary sources"? SlimVirgin 22:33, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)

Primary vs Secondary sources
Should the following from capitalism be deleted according to the new guidelines?

 * Opponents of capitalism counter this by pointing out the unchanged after-tax income of the poorest quintile of the US population during the last two decades. While at the same time the average income and especially the income of the US rich have increased. . Supporters of capitalism point out that the percentage of people in developing countries living below $1 per day have halved in only twenty years, especially in countries like China that has embraced capitalism.

Should it be deleted as "generalization, analysis, synthesis, interpretation, or evaluation" of "primary" sources? Ultramarine 17:00, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * Huh? Don't the links serve as sources/citations?  How is this original research? Or are you saying the sources are disreputable, invalid, or inappropriately used?  Slrubenstein 17:51, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * It is interpretation and generalization to say that the income data for the US is evidence against capitalism in general.

You are misreading the very passage you quote. It does not say that income data is evidence against capitalism. It says that some people believe that income data is evidence against capitalism. This is actually a completely different claim. It is not a claim about capitalism, it is a claim about a group of people. Slrubenstein 18:12, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * But the problem is much bigger than this. Every text in Wikipedia that is not a direct quote is an interpretation of another text. Even a summary is an interpretation of the original text. Ultramarine 18:04, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

If you insist on claiming that even a summary is an interpretation, then I will just have to point out to you that in the policy "interpretation" is being used in a much narrower way. Your own interpretation is a misinterpretation. Slrubenstein 18:12, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * What is the definition for interpretation, synthesis, analysis and generalziation in this policy? When is a change of an original text an interpretation and when is it not?Ultramarine 18:19, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Please just look it up in a good English dictionary. This discussion isnot worth it. If we accept your definition of "interpretation," then every article would have to be deleted. Such a proposal is far from constructive; it is effectively trolling. If you have some constructive point to make here, some way to help us do what we want to do more effectively, please tell us what it is. Slrubenstein 18:21, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yes. I think all the articles in Wikipedia have and must have some degree of interpretation. All facts should be supported from outside sources, if demanded. The only theories in Wikipedia should be those held by "many" people or an authority. But some interpretation and discussion of these theories in Wikipedia is inevitable. Therefore the guidelines cannot just decide which information to allow or not to allow. It must also be guidelines for this discussion and interpretation. One such guideline might be that one cannot argue against "stronger" arguments. A hierarchy might be

1. Peer-reviewed studies or government statistics 2. Academic press 3. Opinion held an authority 4. Opinion held by many people who are not authorities (5. Opinion held by only one or a few people)

For example, it should not be allowed to argue against peer-reviewed studies by refering to common opinion. In the more controversial topics in Wikipedia, this hierarchy for discussion is already in place by itself. Look for example at capitalism or race and intelligence Ultramarine 18:54, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I am sympathetic to these ideas -- but many others may see problems in what you propose. I suggest you present this as a real proposal here and also in the talk page for "cite sources" and invite people to respond. Slrubenstein 19:35, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Mission statement
Yikes, four archives of talk pages already? Can you please put a "mission statement" at some prominent place, stating why and with which objectives the whole rewrite thing has started? --Pjacobi 10:49, 2005 Feb 23 (UTC)

 * Or, can someone propose a list of things that still need to be done (I tried, earlier, but got no response)? This thing is now languishing, after much work and thoughtful discussion.  When can we start cutting and pasting to the actual policy? Slrubenstein   |  Talk  20:14, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * What's the procedure for putting it up? If we're allowed just to do it, then I suggest that we do. Also, have you seen this Reliable sources? It's quite good. I think the idea is that this one will explain why sources need to be cited, and Cite sources will explain how to. SlimVirgin 20:22, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)

Okay -- there is still stuff of value in the old policy. I suggest cutting and pasting sections, one at a time. People are always editing the original policy too, so I don't think we need permission as long as we do it little by little, and strive to keep what is still good in the old policy. Slrubenstein  |  Talk  20:52, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * Shall we draw straws for who goes first? ;-) I'll maybe start if I can get in, though Wikipedia is very slow for me today. It took me 10 minutes to get this page to load for editing. Reading is faster. SlimVirgin 22:02, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)

Attempts to refute a position
The existing No original research guidelines are fairly clear that original attempts to refute a given position in an article are "original research", yet I don't see that as clearly here. In my experience one of the more significant problems of original research are editors who see a position in an article they don't like, and therefore come up with an argument to refute it. I think we need to make it clear that refutations must also come from published sources, and not just arguments people think up on their own. Jayjg (talk) 20:43, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * Steve has just incorporated this draft into the main article at No original research, so perhaps you could take a look and add something? Your explanations to the list of the misuse of deductive reasoning are as clear an exposition of that aspect of OR as I have read. SlimVirgin 20:50, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)

NOR policy update needed
I think that photos, which are intended to make a specific point, should not be uploaded to Wikipedia unless they have been previously published by a disinterested, reputable 3rd party.

Flikr.com, weblogs, partisan political web sites (dailykos, freerepublic, etc) and such are not acceptable, but commercial news organizations and commericial publishers and to a lesser extent, non-profits would be ok. There is simply too much opportunity out there to stage photos, for example:

''Supporters of Candidate A take Candidate B's signs and make a big mess in a parking lot with them and leave also a lot of trash like water bottles and sandwich wrappers.... the Wiki caption for this reads, "trash left behind after local rally for B". ''

Clearly it's a staged photo intended to make a point. If the control parameter of "intended to make a point" is not enforced, the excuse regarding the above scenario would be "I found the trash & signs in the parking lot and merely snapped the photo". Such assertions could not be disproved, opening a pandora's box of scheming opporunities.

Rex071404  216.153.214.94 06:27, 31 October 2005 (UTC)


text:
Árni Magnússon

Árni Magnússon (13 November 1663 – 7 January 1730) was an Icelandic scholar and collector of manuscripts who assembled the Arnamagnæan Manuscript Collection.

Early life and education
Árni was born in 1663 at Kvennabrekka in Dalasýsla, in western Iceland, where his father Magnús Jónsson was the minister (and later prosecutor and sheriff). His mother was Guðrún Ketilsdóttir, daughter of archdeacon Ketill Jörundarson of Hvammur. He was raised by his grandparents and uncle. At 17 he entered the Cathedral School in Skálholt, then three years later, in 1683, went to Denmark (with his father, who was part of a trade lobbying contingent) to study at the University of Copenhagen. There he earned the degree of attestus theologiæ after two years, and also became an assistant to the Royal Antiquarian, Thomas Bartholin, helping him prepare his Antiquitates danicæ and transcribing, translating, and annotating thousands of pages of Icelandic material.

Career
After Bartholin's death in 1690, Árni became librarian and secretary to a Danish statesman, Matthias Moth (brother of Sophie Amalie Moth, mistress to King Christian V until his death in 1699). From late 1694 to late 1696, he was in Germany, primarily to assess a book collection that had been offered to the university, but he extended the stay. Meanwhile, presumably thanks to his employer, he was appointed a professor designate at the university, and since he had never published, while still in Leipzig he published an edition of some Danish chronicles that he had copied while working for Bartholin. When he returned to Denmark, he resumed working for Moth but in 1697 was also appointed secretary at The Royal Secret Archives (Det Kongelige Gehejmearkiv). In 1699 he published anonymously, at Moth's request, an account of a witchcraft case in which Moth had been a judge, Kort og sandfærdig Beretning om den vidtudraabte Besættelse udi Thisted.

With vice-lawman Páll Vídalín, he was assigned by King Frederick IV of Denmark to survey conditions in Iceland; this took ten years, from 1702 to 1712, most of which time he spent there. He returned to Copenhagen for two winters, the first time to present trade proposals, and during the second, which was in connection with a court case, he got married. The ultimate results of the survey were the Icelandic census of 1703 and the Jarðabók or land register, surveying for which was not completed until 1714 and which had to be translated into Danish after Árni's death. He was expected to translate it himself, but it was one of several official tasks he neglected. It was finally published in 11 volumes in 1911–41. However, the mission as set out by the King was extremely broad, including investigating the feasibility of sulphur mining, assessing the fisheries, and auditing the administration of justice. Complaints of judicial abuse poured in, and officials were incensed by the two men's inquiries into past court cases and in turn complained to Copenhagen about them.

Returning in 1713 to Copenhagen, where he was to spend the rest of his life, Árni resumed his duties as librarian, becoming unofficial head of the archive early in 1720 and later deputy librarian, possibly eventually head librarian, at the University Library. He also took up his appointment as professor of Philosophy and Danish Antiquities at the university, which had been awarded in 1701. In 1721 he was also appointed Professor of History and Geography.

Collections and work
Árni had a lifelong passion for collecting manuscripts, principally Icelandic, but also those of other Nordic countries. It is likely that this started with Bartholin, who, when he had to return to Iceland temporarily in 1685 because his father had died, ordered him to bring back every manuscript he could lay hands on, and then sent him to Norway and Lund in 1689–90 to collect more. In addition, his uncle had been a scribe and his grandfather Ketill Jörundsson was a very prolific copyist. When he started collecting, most of the large codices had already been removed from Iceland and were in either the royal collection in Copenhagen or private collections in various Scandinavian countries; only in 1685, at Bartholin's urging, did the King forbid selling Icelandic manuscripts to foreigners and exporting them. But there was plenty left, especially since Árni was interested in even humble items and would do whatever it took to get something. When Bartholin died, Árni helped his brother prepare his books and manuscripts for sale, and secured the Icelandic manuscripts among them for himself, including Möðruvallabók.

Through his connection with Moth, Árni had some political influence, for which aspiring Icelanders gave him books and manuscripts. During his ten years surveying Iceland, he had access by the King's writ to all manuscripts in the country, had his collection with him, and worked on it during the winters; it and the survey papers had to be left behind in Iceland when he was recalled, but were shipped to him in 1721. What he could not secure, he would borrow for copying; a number of copyists worked for him at his professorial residence in Copenhagen. His collection became the largest of its kind. His house burned down in the Copenhagen fire of 1728; with the help of friends, he was able to save most of the manuscripts, but some things were lost, including almost all the printed books and at least one unique item. His copyist Jón Ólafsson wrote out the contents of one manuscript from memory after both it and the copy he had made were lost in the fire. Árni has been blamed for delaying too long before starting to move his collection. He had not made an exhaustive inventory of his holdings, and several times stated that he believed the losses greater than was generally thought. (Everything in the University Library was destroyed, including many Icelandic documents which we now have only because of copies Árni made for Bartholin, and most other professors lost all their books.)

Árni was consulted by and readily assisted scholars all over Europe. In particular, he considerably helped Þormóður Torfason, the Royal Historian of Norway, in preparing his work for publication, having first made his acquaintance when he travelled there for Bartholin, and the second edition of Íslendingabók ever published (in Oxford) is actually substantially Árni's translation and commentary, although Christen Worm is credited as editor. Árni disavowed it as a youthful effort.

Árni was unusual for his time in scrupulous crediting of sources and attention to accuracy. In his own aphorism:

Árni made a late marriage in 1709 to Mette Jensdatter Fischer, widow of the royal saddlemaker, who was 19 years older and wealthy. He returned to Iceland only a few months later to continue his work on the land register; they corresponded by letter until his return to Copenhagen. He lived only a little more than a year after the Copenhagen fire, dependent on friends for lodgings and having to move three times; the winter was harsh and when he fell ill, he had to have assistance to sign his will. He died early the next day, January 7, 1730, and was buried in the north choir of the still-ruined Vor Frue Kirke. His wife died in September and was buried beside him.

He bequeathed his collection to the state with provision for its upkeep and for assistance to Icelandic students. It forms the basis of the Arnamagnæan Institute and associated stipends.

Legacy
Árni's remaining collection, now known as the Arnamagnæan Manuscript Collection, is now divided between two institutions, both named after him and both educational as well as archival in purpose: the Arnamagnæan Institute in Copenhagen and the Árni Magnússon Institute for Icelandic Studies in Reykjavík. The street Arni Magnussons Gade in the Kalvebod Brygge area of Copenhagen is named after him. He was depicted on the now-obsolete 100 Icelandic króna banknote.

The character Arnas Arnæus in Nobel prize-winner Halldór Kiljan Laxness's novel Iceland's Bell (Íslandsklukkan) is based on him; the novel concerns the manslaughter case against Jón Hreggviðsson, a farmer whose conviction was eventually reversed in part due to Árni and Vídalín's investigations. Arne Saknussemm, a character in Jules Verne's Journey to the Center of the Earth, is also based on him.

title: Árni Magnússon


text:
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/John Kenney

In order to remain listed at Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this sysop and have failed. This must involve the same dispute, not different disputes. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 01:58, 2004 Dec 5), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is:, 29 July 2024 (UTC).

 * (John Kenney | talk | contributions)

Statement of the dispute
''This is a summary written by users who dispute this sysop's conduct. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.''

Description
John Kenney was involved in a revert war on the page in question - John Kenney then
 * reverted the page to his preferred version
 * locked the page (at 23:27, 4 Dec 2004)
 * failed to put a protection notice on the page
 * put an abusive summary in the protection log (at 23:27, 4 Dec 2004) AND at (23:26, 4 Dec 2004)

Powers misused

 * Protection (log):
 * Historical reconstruction of the sort of person Jesus would be
 * Warning, the above page is protected in the form of a redirect, please check you are looking at the correct page. CheeseDreams 01:58, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Applicable policies

 * Protection policy
 * John Kenney reverted the page to an edit war version he wanted as his POV
 * John Kenney protected this version of the page despite in the revert war
 * John Kenney failed to put a protection notice on the page despite locking it from editing

 * No personal attacks
 * In the protection log summary, John Kenney refers to me as a troll
 * In the protection log summary, John Kenney calls for me to be banned.

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute
(provide diffs and links)
 * Talk:Jesus in a cultural and historical background

Users certifying the basis for this dispute
(sign with ~ )
 * CheeseDreams 01:58, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Other users who endorse this statement
(sign with ~ )
 * I cannot certify the dispute because it has arisen while I was offline and CheeseDreams has put this up before I had any chance to talk to the admin in person, but there's no question this admin abused his privileges to block a page he personally was edit-warring over. Why have the policy if edit warriors can just abuse it?Dr Zen 00:22, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * From reading the policy guidelines at "Wikipedia:Protection policy" I see this admin did break them. But the policy is stacked against the complainant. It says: "In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this sysop and have failed. This must involve the same dispute, not different disputes. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts," I haven't "tried to resolve a dispute", with him, let alone "the same dispute". But I agree with CheeseDream's Applicable policies etc. summary above. One thing; some of the people listed in "Users who endorse this summary": (Mackensen, Chris0, Proteus, Neutrality, Rhobite, Antandrus), shouldn't be there as the page says that section should be used: "by the sysop whose actions are disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the sysop's actions did not violate policy." They should use the Outside Comments section as he admits he did violate the policy and it's a matter of record that he did. WikiUser 21:03, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Response
''This is a summary written by the sysop whose actions are disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the sysop's actions did not violate policy. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.''

To respond point by point:

 * Protection policy

1. John Kenney reverted the page to an edit war version he wanted as his POV
 * I reverted to the redirect version apparently supported by everyone except CheeseDreams, I will agree.
 * That's against the policy.

2. John Kenney protected this version of the page despite in the revert war
 * Indeed I did. It should not have been unprotected in the first place, and CheeseDreams took the opportunity of unprotection to move the page to an entirely ridiculous title.
 * So is that.

3. John Kenney failed to put a protection notice on the page despite locking it from editing
 * Indeed I did - if one puts a protection notice on a redirect page, it does not redirect.
 * So you do not dispute any of the abuses you are accused of?

1. In the protection log summary, John Kenney refers to me as a troll
 * No personal attacks
 * Indeed, because I fail to conceive of a definition of troll which excludes CheeseDreams

2. In the protection log summary, John Kenney calls for me to be banned.
 * Indeed, because I do not think she is contributing in good faith, and don't think that users whose principal purpose here is to get into disputes have any place here.

To speak more generally, I will admit that I probably did not behave within the letter of the law in protecting the page under consideration. If it is felt that I behaved inappropriately, I am happy to accept whatever discipline the community would feel it appropriate to impose. However, substantively, I think that the entire article in question is part of an attempt by CheeseDreams to hijack the Cultural and historical background of Jesus article. Further, I don't believe that CheeseDreams is a good faith contributor to the wikipedia. She has nothing but abuse for anyone who disagrees with her and is completely unamenable to any discussion or compromise. I had no desire for another worthless edit war over this ridiculousness, so I simply protected it again - it should never have been unprotected to begin with. john k 07:35, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~ ):
 * 1) john k 07:37, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) Mackensen (talk) 09:10, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC). This RfC, and the others like it, is an abuse of the dispute resolution process and a waste of everyone's (including CheeseDreams') time.
 * 3) Slrubenstein 18:30, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 4) ChrisO 19:01, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC) Agree entirely with Mackensen.
 * 5) Proteus (Talk) 19:13, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 6) [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality/talk]] 03:10, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)
 * 7) Rhobite 04:39, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)
 * 8) Antandrus 04:50, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 9) Jayjg 21:00, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 10) It was foolish to give CheeseDreams this kind of amunition by doing what you did. I hope you'll learn the lesson in this, and stick to the letter of the law in the future. However, if I had to make a judgement who's acting in good faith, it's clearly you, not CheeseDreams: Especially since I see no realistic effort on behalf of CheeseDreams to resolve this dispute before lodging this RfC. Shane King 07:03, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)

Comments about comments in the response

 * So it's okay for admins to abuse policy so long as they "act in good faith"? I'm surprised to hear that from you, Shane.Dr Zen 07:28, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * No, I certainly do not think it's OK. However, in this case, there are a couple of extenuating circumstances:
 * No real attempt by the person making the RfC to resolve the dispute before bringing it here
 * No evidence that this is anything but an isolated incident where an error in judgement was made
 * The first reason leads me not to support CheeseDream's RfC request. The second leads me not to view it as abuse, but rather a mistake.

 * I clearly said I hope this is a lesson. Nobody is perfect, and I think everyone should be allowed to make mistakes every now and then so long as they try to do the right thing. If John Kenney shows a pattern of behaving in this way, of course I wont stand for it. But for now, my better judgement tells me it's not like that. If you need a policy for me to hang this view on, look no further than assume good faith. Shane King 05:02, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)
 * See Slrubenstein's talk page where John Kenney openly admits to deliberately violating policy. CheeseDreams 19:06, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Outside view
''This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.''

John Kenney readily admits that he did not follow policy. But this seems to be a one-off minor error. A mistake, yes, but certainly not a hanging offence. jguk 19:11, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~ ):
 * 1) jguk jguk 19:11, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Discussion
All signed comments and talk not related to a vote or endorsement, should be directed to this page's discussion page.


text: Category:Radio telescopes

title: Category:Radio telescopes


text: User talk:81.179.224.94

title: User talk:81.179.224.94


text: Category talk:Television stations in Hawaii


text:
Epistrophe

Epistrophe (ἐπιστροφή, "return") is the repetition of the same word or words at the end of successive phrases, clauses or sentences. It is also known as epiphora and occasionally as antistrophe. It is a figure of speech and the counterpart of anaphora. It is an extremely emphatic device because of the emphasis placed on the last word in a phrase or sentence.

Platonic epistrophe
Greek epistrophe: "a word coined by Plato as a goal of philosophical education and the term adopted by early Christians for conversion".

Examples
* "Hourly joys be still upon you! Juno sings her blessings on you. ... Scarcity and want shall shun you, Ceres' blessing so is on you." — Shakespeare, The Tempest (4.1.108–109; 116–17) In the beginning of this quotation by Barack Obama epistrophe is evoked, while the latter part makes use of anaphora.
 * "Where affections bear rule, their reason is subdued, honesty is subdued, good will is subdued, and all things else that withstand evil, for ever are subdued." — Thomas Wilson
 * "... this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom—and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth." — Abraham Lincoln in the Gettysburg Address
 * "When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child; but when I became a man, I put away childish things." — The Apostle Paul, in the Bible, 1 Cor 13:11 (King James Translation)''
 * "There is no Negro problem. There is no Southern problem. There is no Northern problem. There is only an American problem." Lyndon B. Johnson in "We Shall Overcome"
 * "What lies behind us and what lies before us are tiny compared to what lies within us." — Ralph Waldo Emerson
 * It was a creed written into the founding documents that declared the destiny of a nation. Yes we can. It was whispered by slaves and abolitionists as they blazed a trail towards freedom through the darkest of nights. Yes we can. It was sung by immigrants as they struck out from distant shores and pioneers who pushed westward against an unforgiving wilderness. Yes we can. It was the call of workers who organized; women who reached for the ballot; a President who chose the moon as our new frontier; and a King who took us to the mountaintop and pointed the way to the Promised Land. Yes we can to justice and equality. Yes we can to opportunity and prosperity. Yes we can heal this nation. Yes we can repair this world. Yes we can.

title: Epistrophe


text: User talk:4.7.210.246

title: User talk:4.7.210.246