text:
Arnstadt

Arnstadt is a town in Ilm-Kreis, Thuringia, Germany, on the river Gera about 20 km south of Erfurt, the capital of Thuringia. Arnstadt is one of the oldest towns in Thuringia, and has a well-preserved historic centre with a partially preserved town wall. The town is nicknamed Das Tor zum Thüringer Wald ("The Gateway to the Thuringian Forest") because of its location on the northern edge of that forest. Arnstadt has a population of approximately 27,000.

Geography
The town centre is on the west side of Gera. The municipality has absorbed several neighbouring municipalities: Angelhausen–Oberndorf (1922), Siegelbach (1994), Rudisleben (1999) and Wipfratal (2019). The neighbouring municipalities are Amt Wachsenburg, Alkersleben, Dornheim, Bösleben-Wüllersleben, Stadtilm, Ilmenau, Plaue and Geratal.

Climate
The annual precipitation averages 487 mm.

History
A deed of gift issued 1 May 704 in Würzburg by the Thuringian Duke Hedan II to the Anglo-Saxon bishop Willibrord of Utrecht is the first written reference to Arnstadt ("Arnestati"), along with two other towns—the oldest documented reference of settlements in Thuringia and central and eastern Germany. In 726, Arnstadt passed to the Abbey of Echternach, and later to the Abbey of Hersfeld. According to historian August Beck, in 925 the territories of Henry I were extended as a bulwark against the invading Magyars. On 17 December 954, Holy Roman Emperor Otto I made peace in Arnstadt with his rebellious son Liudolf of Swabia and another son, William, whom he appointed Archbishop of Mainz, and decided that the Liebfrauenkirche (Church of Our Lady) would be built.

In the 12th century a part of Arnstadt fell under the rule of the Counts of Kevernburg. On 8 March 1198 the princes of the Holy Roman Empire gathered in Arnstadt and elected Philip of Swabia as King of Germany. In 1220 Arnstadt was first described as a civitas, that is a city. On 21 April 1266, the abbot of the Abbey of Hersfeld granted a charter; thereafter, Arnstadt became a hub for trade in timber, grain, wine and wood.

After the extinction of the Kevernburg family from 1302 to 1306, the counts of Schwarzburg took possession of Arnstadt. Attempts by Erfurt 1342 and 1345 to seize what was now a wealthy town failed due to the strong attachment. Arnstadt's prosperity was based on the milling industry, the cloth-making trade, tanneries, and trade in wine, woad, wood, grain, wool, and vegetables.

On 30 January 1349, Count Günther XXI of Schwarzburg, an adversary of King Charles IV, was elected and crowned sovereign of Arnstadt in Frankfurt. He renounced this title on 26 May for 20,000 silver marks. A 1404 reference was found in 2000 to Bratwurst originating in Arnstadt, therefore the town claims its invention. In 1496, the Schwarzburg domains were divided into the lordships of Schwarzburg-Rudolstadt and Schwarzburg-Sondershausen, to which Arnstadt belonged. During the German Peasants' War 95 participants in the uprising were beheaded as ringleaders in the Arnstadt marketplace, on 17 June and 2 August 1525. The city was forced to pay 3000 guilders for supporting the insurgents. In 1531 the Reformation was introduced into Arnstadt. As a result, the Franciscan maidens' convent, and subsequently the Franciscan mendicant convent (Barfüßerkloster) were secularized. From 1581, the church of the former Franciscan monastery (now the Oberkirche, "Upper Church") was the main church of the city. In 1553, work began on the count's residence, Neideck Castle. The water palace was completed in 1560.

With the onset of industrialisation, a residential area emerged to the west and south of the old town, and industrial areas to the north. During the Second World War, it was the site of a prisoner-of-war camp, mainly for Poles and Russians. 1,700 prisoners were housed in tents that contained only 100 bunks. The camp was liberated by American Forces in April 1945. A number of mass graves were discovered. 1,200 civilians from the neighbouring city of Weimar were brought on a forced tour of the camp. This included a "parchment display" which displayed a "lampshade made of human skin." The display also included pieces of skin used for painting pictures. After the Second World War, the town expanded further to the north along the Geratals, new residential areas emerged in the 1970s and 80s, in the east and southeast of Arnstadt, including the residential Raven Hold. Arnstadt is a manufacturing centre with glassworks and foundries, a solar panel production plant, and glove-manufacturing and wood-finishing businesses.

Main sights
Arnstadt has a beautifully kept old town, restricted to pedestrian traffic. Its noteworthy buildings include:
 * the 13th-century Romanesque-Gothic Liebfrauenkirche (Church of Our Lady)
 * an 18th-century palace
 * the Bach Church (formerly the New Church)
 * the former Franciscan church Oberkirche ("Upper Church")

In 1703, at the age of eighteen, the composer Johann Sebastian Bach was appointed as organist at the New Church. The family lived for generations in the vicinity of Arnstadt and this was his first post. Newly constructed by the master organ builder Johann Friedrich Wender, the organ was inaugurated by Bach in a Sunday recital for the feast of St John the Baptist. Bach was fortunate to be able to play on such a modern and fully operational instrument: it had well-tempered tuning, permitted diverse harmonic effects, and did not require constant repair. His period in Arnstadt ended in 1707, but already by then Bach had acquired an almost complete mastery of organ and keyboard technique, that would remain with him throughout his life. His organ works ranged from large-scale chorales to more diverse pieces, such as fugues, preludes, fantasias, toccatas, passacaglias, sonatas and concertos. He also drew inspiration from his contemporaries, as well as the Italian, German and French masterworks of the sixteenth and seventeenth century, such as the Fiori Musicali of Girolamo Frescobaldi. As point out, for the critical period between 1703 and 1707, Bach has ideal conditions "to strengthen and expand his virtuosity and, as a composer, build and develop his harmonic fantasy and tonal ideas".

Sport
The town hosts an annual high jump meet – Hochsprung mit Musik – which attracts some of the world's foremost high jumpers. Kajsa Bergqvist set a world record in Arnstadt's Sporthalle am Jahn-sportpark in 2006.

Twin towns – sister cities
Arnstadt is twinned with:
 * 🇫🇷 Le Bouscat, France
 * 🇨🇿 Dubí, Czech Republic
 * 🇦🇹 Gurk, Austria
 * 🇩🇪 Kassel, Germany

Sons and daughters of the town

 * Johann Christoph Bach (1642–1703), composer
 * Johann Michael Bach (1648–1694), composer
 * August Johann Rösel von Rosenhof (1705–1759), naturalist
 * Johann Christian Gottlieb Ernesti (1756–1802), classical scholar
 * Johann Christian von Hellbach (1757–1828), lawyer and writer
 * Ernst August Nicolai (1800–1875), naturalist
 * Friedrich Filitz (1804–1876), composer and musicologist
 * E. Marlitt (1825–1887), writer
 * Bernhard Stade (1848–1906), theologian
 * Katrin Schreiter (born 1969), athlete
 * Kornelia Greßler (born 1970), swimmer
 * Sandra Wallenhorst (born 1972), triathlete and duathlete
 * Thomas Ziegler (born 1980), cyclist
 * Theresa Senff (born 1982), cyclist
 * Marcel Kittel (born 1988), cyclist

Associated with the town

 * Johann Friedrich Wender (1655–1729), organ builder, worked here
 * Johann Sebastian Bach (1685–1750), composer and musician, worked here
 * Willibald Alexis (1798–1871), historical novelist, lived and died here
 * Ludwig Bechstein (1801–1860), writer, studied here in 1818–1821

title: Arnstadt


text: User talk:209.66.221.2

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

title: User talk:209.66.221.2


text:
User talk:MDesigner

Hi and welcome to wikipedia. About Image:Coral snake closeup.jpg did you take this photo yourself? Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 20:27, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

No I didn't.. I'd like to actually remove it by I don't know how.. MDesigner

 * I can remove it for you, but where did you get it from ? (Maybe it's allowed anyway if it's a public domain pic). Btw to sign a comment type four tildes ~ the software will sign and date for you. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 20:38, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Ahh, thanks for the tip! I got the photo from http://www.sciencenmore.com/scipe.html MDesigner 20:40, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)
 * OK well I've deleted the photo for you, but you might want to email the website owner and ask if he is the copyright owner and if so would he consider releasing the picture under the GFDL. He might say yes. Also please tag your own photos with or one of our other copyrights. There is talk of releasing a CD version and a printed version of Wikipedia sometime in the future. Images that aren't tagged with an acceptable copyright notice or can be used under "fair use" won't go in. Theresa Knott  (The snott rake) 21:56, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Tail wagging
I rephrased it after removing it... the whole article is poorly written and a poor-excuse for an encyclopedia article. It's massively POV, and full of editorializations. I'm gonna take a crack at it. No offense to your addition personally, it's just what brought the ARTICLE to my attention. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 21:52, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)

 * Yes, exactly, it does NOT equate with a cat purring. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 22:11, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)

Image and welcome
Hello. I notice that you've tagged Image:Adriana Lima.jpg as being public domain. Could you please provide some more information on the source? Thanks. -- Infrogmation 17:01, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply. -- Infrogmation 05:43, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Oh, and as it seems no one has extended you an official welcome yet, here it is, with some links that may be helpful or of interest:

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Cheers, -- Infrogmation 17:01, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Image copyright problem with Image:Ideal cut dm.jpg
Thank you for uploading Image:Ideal cut dm.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page. If you'd like to release this image under the GFDL, simply add GFDL to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 22:10, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

title: User talk:MDesigner


text:
Nancy MacBeth

Nancy MacBeth ( Elliott; born December 29, 1948) is a Canadian politician who was the leader of the Alberta Liberal Party and Leader of the Opposition from 1998 to 2001. She was the first female opposition leader in the province's history.

Early life
Born in Edmonton, Alberta, MacBeth received a Bachelor of Arts at the University of Alberta, in French and Russian; studying Université Laval, studying French Canadian literature. She subsequently worked as an executive assistant for several Alberta cabinet ministers.

Early political career
MacBeth, then known as Nancy Betkowski, first entered electoral politics as an Alberta Progressive Conservative Party Member of the Legislative Assembly (MLA) for the riding of Edmonton-Glenora from 1986 to 1993 in the government of Don Getty. She was Minister of Education from 1986 to 1988, and was then appointed Minister of Health, serving in that position until 1992.

She then ran as a candidate in the party's 1992 leadership convention against Ralph Klein. Regarded by the membership as a Red Tory, Betkowski became the preferred candidate of the party establishment. However, Klein's populist appeal won him the leadership, and Betkowski did not stand as a candidate in the 1993 election.

Liberal leader
She subsequently married portfolio manager and financial writer Hilliard MacBeth.

She then returned to politics in 1998, running for the leadership of the Alberta Liberals after the resignation of Grant Mitchell. Elected to be the MLA for Edmonton-McClung, MacBeth tried to capitalize on discontent with Klein's government in some Alberta communities by reaching out to disaffected Red Tories, but proved unable to connect with voters.

In the 2001 provincial election, the Liberals won only seven seats, less than half as many as they had held before the election. Among the losses was MacBeth's own seat of Edmonton-McClung. The election left the party a million dollar debt that took about 10 years to pay off.

She left politics again, and was succeeded by Ken Nicol as party leader.

title: Nancy MacBeth


text:
Launched (album)

Launched is the second album from German hardcore punk band, Beatsteaks. It was released in March, 2000 on Epitaph Records and follows the band's debut release 48/49 in 1997 on XNO Records. The album contains an interesting half acoustic cover version of a song by heavy metal band, Manowar, "Kings of Metal". The band stayed with Epitaph Records for their next release, Living Targets, in 2002.

Track listing

 * All songs written by Beatsteaks unless stated otherwise
 * 1) "Panic"				– 2:38
 * 2) "We Have to Figure It Out Tonight"	– 1:36
 * 3) "Shut Up Stand Up"			– 2:44
 * 4) "Shiny Shoes"				– 2:59
 * 5) "2 O'Clock"				– 2:58
 * 6) "Happy Now?"				– 3:51
 * 7) "Mietzi's Song"			– 2:44
 * 8) "Excited"				– 1:24
 * 9) "...And Wait"				– 3:45
 * 10) "Filter"				– 2:20
 * 11) "Fake"					– 3:14
 * 12) "Go"					– 2:09
 * 13) "Kings of Metal" (Joey DeMaio)	– 4:35
 * 14) "Schluß mit Rock 'n' Roll"		– 12:54
 * Track 14 is only actually 3:12 – the rest of the track starts at 4:15 and is taken from rehearsals

Credits

 * Arnim Teutoburg-Weiß	–	vocals, guitar
 * Peter Baumann	–	guitar
 * Bernd Kurtzke	–	guitar
 * Alexander Roßwaag	–	bass
 * Thomas Götz	–	drums
 * El Köfte and Holly – guest musicians on "Mietzi's Song" and "Schluß mit Rock 'n' Roll"
 * Recorded in 1999 at K4 (Elektro Automatisch), Berlin, Germany
 * Produced and engineered by Uwe Sabirowsky
 * Co-produced by Beatsteaks
 * Mixed at Nucleus Studio, Berlin, Germany
 * Mastered by Howie Weinberg at Masterdisk, New York City, USA

title: Launched (album)


text:
Talk:Steam explosion

The worst case reactor accident (in terms of widespread distribution of respirable radioactive release) is NOT (usually) melt through the basemat -it's a steam explosion /fci firing the head through the containment (alpha mode failure in Rasmussen's WASH1400 nomenclature)
 * Can that nomenclature be found online? It'd be good to reference it.  I was viewing the melt-through-the-basement as a preliminary to a steam explosion having the same effect, plus groundwater contamination, but I have no real analysis behind that.  So if you want to update it, please do! And it'd be nice to have a (grim) article on Nuclear reactor failure modes... --Andrew 21:33, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)

What IS a steam explosion??
The latest addition by Malarky apparently makes a steam explosion synonomous with any rapid expansion of superheated water - whilst I'm not in principal to this phenomenon being discussed, it's not what I understood by the term (by a long way). After an appropriate invitaion for discussion, I would wish to revert the change. Bob aka Linuxlad 22:21, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

The folling is part of the message I alread sent ot Linuxlad:

Short Version: Approximately 950PSI, 850F water inside boiler reached the furnace, which is hot enough to make cro-moly high temperature steel glow cherry red, which is at most at 30PSIA. The biggest problem I saw was that the article said most of these explosions are caused from lava hitting water, but man has been blowing up boilers in tugboats since at least 1860.

Part of damage to boiler. http://img495.imageshack.us/my.php?image=expansionjoint1kt.jpg

Outside Diameter:2”, Thickness:.134”, Name: Frontwall Tube http://img3.imageshack.us/my.php?image=explodedtube4xb.jpg

The above boiler explosion was water tube.

I may be wrong that a Steam Explosion is not violent enough to be part of that article, however you'll find that old firetube boilers used roughly in the years 1860s-1940s (not exact years, probably a little earlier on both years) were known for disintegrating the entire wooden ship in the event of an explosion. Hence the start of federal inspections of them.

Malarky 23:30, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Well you can certainly get a fair old crack out of a layer of superheated water formed at/after a quench front with a hot surface. But the sort of things that people usually talk of here appear to rely on much higher heat transfer areas than are available from a normal solid interface like a boiler tube. There was a lot of high-speed camera work (10,000fps or better) done about 25 years back, which seemed to show that, in simulated foundry accidents (_molten_ metals and water), the materials roughly intermixed on a cm scale but stably film boiling initially - then, crack, a shock front went through, and all the hot material got fragmented and gave up its heat across a very large heat transfer area, in a few milliseconds. The results, especially in a foundry, wrought havoc. And you could sweep the fine debris up afterwards.

Lets try and use your material, but not to so take over the piece as it's presently written. Certain of the key phenomena are the same but the key step, self-sustaining fine fragmentation, is not. Linuxlad

Steam explosion in refinery distillation columns
This happens fairly often at oil refineries. If "wet" steam is allowed to enter a distillation column the hot oil will flash the liquid water and the steam produces enough pressure to dislodge all the trays. This doesn't cause the column to explode or anything, but it does mangle the steel trays requireing a shut down and a few weeks of work to repair.

Jason K

Littoral explosion?
This term can't possibly be a synonym for "steam explosion", can it? 98.182.33.64 (talk) 02:01, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Possibly in vulcanology, such as Hawaii, where magma injected into seawater is an important and distinctive process, giving rise to pillow lavas. Otherwise it's a new one on me and does look dubious. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:04, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Overall, the whole article seems to lump together boiler explosions, nuclear reactor accidents and vulcanology as if they were the same thing. They clearly aren't, even if "steam" and "explosions" are involved in all. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:06, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure, it might be a bona fide term of art in vulcanology—the phenomenon is discussed in the article and illustrated by the image—but it's surely no synonym for "steam explosion". The introduction claims it is. I think that part should be removed or rephrased. 98.182.33.64 (talk) 23:57, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Chernobyl
The Chernobyl Disaster was the product of one or more steam explosions. I have read that the intensity of the second explosion was such that it mught have been a hydrogen explosion, caused by the mixture of super hot graphite from the reactor core and steam. Much of this is, of course, conjectural but steam obviously played a major role and it is possible that hydrogen was also a part of the second explosion. Flanker235 (talk) 09:40, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Steam explosion


text:
Liberal government, 1892–1895

In the 1892 general election, the Conservative Party, led by the Marquess of Salisbury, won the most seats but not an overall majority. As a result, William Gladstone's Liberal Party formed a minority government that relied upon Irish Nationalist support. On 3 March 1894, Gladstone resigned over the rejection of his Home Rule Bill and the Earl of Rosebery succeeded him.

Changes

 * May 1894 – James Bryce succeeds A. J. Mundella at the Board of Trade. Lord Tweedmouth succeeds Bryce at the Duchy of Lancaster, remaining also Lord Privy Seal.

List of ministers
Cabinet members are listed in bold face.

 * Notes

title: Liberal government, 1892–1895


text:
Filemón

Filemón is a male given name which may refer to:

People: Fictional characters:
 * Filemón Treviño: Mexican artist
 * Filemón Arcos: Mexican musician and politician
 * Filemón Navarro: Mexican politician
 * Filemón: one of the main characters of the Spanish comic series Mort & Phil

title: Filemón


text:
Underpinning

In construction or renovation, underpinning is the process of strengthening the foundation of an existing building or other structure. Underpinning may be necessary for a variety of reasons:
 * The original foundation isn't strong or stable enough.
 * The usage of the structure has changed.
 * The properties of the soil supporting the foundation may have changed (possibly through subsidence) or were mischaracterized during design.
 * The construction of nearby structures necessitates the excavation of soil supporting existing foundations.
 * To increase the depth or load capacity of existing foundations to support the addition of another storey to the building (above or below grade).
 * It is more economical, due to land price or otherwise, to work on the present structure's foundation than to build a new one.
 * Earthquake, flood, drought or other natural causes have caused the structure to move, requiring stabilisation of foundation soils and/or footings.

Underpinning may be accomplished by extending the foundation in depth or breadth so it either rests on a more supportive soil stratum or distributes its load across a greater area. Use of micropiles and jet grouting are common methods in underpinning.

Underpinning may be necessary where P class (problem) soils in certain areas of the site are encountered.

Through semantic change the word underpinning has evolved to encompass all abstract concepts that serve as a foundation.

Mass concrete underpinning
Mass concrete underpinning is one of the simplest forms of remedial underpinning at shallow depths. This type of underpinning is done by excavating "bays" along and under the existing foundation and filling them with mass concrete. It is sometimes called a "traditional" method to distinguish it from other types of underpinning like piling and needling. The latter often require underpinning specialists and may use proprietary underpinning systems. Mass concrete underpinning work is performed in compliance with the Party Wall Act (in the UK) using plans that are designed with engineering calculations to plan a sequence of excavating bays along and underneath the existing foundation without damaging existing walls. In some cases walls have collapsed because lateral support was inadequate leading to disputes among contractors, subcontractors and architects about where the responsibility lay for the mistake.

Mass concrete underpinning is commonly used when permanent support is needed to comply with the Party Wall Act of 1996 in the construction of a new basement during a restoration, rehabilitation or redevelopment.

In the United Kingdom most subsidence claims are for buildings at least 40 years old with shallow strip foundations. This is one of the most common types of foundations suffering from subsidence related damage and according to the Building Research Establishment subsidence database, mass concrete underpinning was the most common underpinning and was often applied only to part of a building. If the soils have a low bearing capacity partial underpinning may increase the risk of differential settlement and localized settlement due to additional load on the soil.

Beam and base underpinning
The beam and base method of underpinning is a more technically advanced adaptation of traditional mass concrete underpinning. A reinforced concrete beam is constructed below, above or in replacement of the existing footing. The beam then transfers the load of the building to mass concrete bases, which are constructed at designed strategic locations. Base sizes and depths are dependent upon the prevailing ground conditions. Beam design is dependent upon the configuration of the building and the applied loads. Anti-heave precautions are often incorporated in schemes where potential expansion of clay soils may occur.

Mini-piled underpinning
Mini-piles have the greatest use where ground conditions are variable, where access is restrictive, where environmental pollution aspects are significant, and where structural movements in service must be minimal. Mini-piled underpinning is generally used when the loads from the foundations need to be transferred to stable soils at considerable depths – usually in excess of 5 m. Mini-piles may either be augured or driven steel cased, and are normally between 150 mm and 300 mm in diameter. Structural engineers will use rigs which are specifically designed to operate in environments with restricted headroom and limited space, and can gain access through a regular domestic doorway. They are capable of constructing piles to depths of up to 15 m. The technique of minipiling was first applied in Italy in 1952, and has gone through many different names, reflecting worldwide acceptance and expiration of the original patents.

The relatively small diameter of mini-piles is distinctive of this type of underpinning and generally uses anchoring or tie backs into an existing structure or rock. Conventional drilling and grouting methods are used for this method of underpinning. These mini-piles have a high slenderness ratio, feature substantial steel reinforcing elements and can sustain axial loading in both senses. The working loads of mini-piles can sustain up to 1000 kN loads.

In comparison to Mass Concrete Underpinning, the engineering aspect of mini-piles is somewhat more involved, including rudimentary engineering mechanics such as statics and strength of materials. These mini-piles must be designed to work in tension and compression, depending on the orientation and application of the design. In detail, attention with design must be paid analytically to settlement, bursting, buckling, cracking, and interface consideration, whereas, from a practical viewpoint, corrosion resistance, and compatibility with the existing ground and structure must be regarded.

Mini-piled underpinning schemes
Mini-piled underpinning schemes include pile and beam, cantilever pile-caps and piled raft systems. Cantilevered pile-caps are usually used to avoid disturbing the inside of a building, and require the construction of tension and compression piles to each cap. These are normally linked by a beam. The pile and beam system usually involves constructing pairs of piles on either side of the wall and linking them with a pile cap to support the wall. The pile caps are usually linked by reinforced concrete beams to support the entire length of the wall. Piled raft underpinning systems are commonly used when an entire building needs to be underpinned. The internal floors are completely removed, a grid of piles is installed, and a reinforced concrete raft is then constructed over the complete floor level, picking up and fully supporting all external and internal walls.

Chemical grout
One of the uses of the soil improvement technique of pressure grouting is foundation underpinning especially during excavations like subway constructions. This technique has been used in municipal development projects of significant scope in the United States. One of the largest chemical grouting projects was the extension of the Pittsburgh Light Rail Transit subway when the foundations of six large buildings needed to be protected from ground movement and related building settlement.

Pressure grouting can be low pressure or high pressure. "Jet grouting" is a general term used for high pressure grouting where the high pressure air, water and cementing grout are injected into the ground at high velocity. This can be doing with single tube systems to mix the grout with in situ soil to form a grouted "column" in the ground. Double tube systems and triple tube systems using air and water remove some of the soil to create larger grouted bulbs or columns.

Low pressure chemical injection grouting is used to underpin structures in sandy soils.

title: Underpinning


text: Category:Actinomycetota

title: Category:Actinomycetota


text:
Roger Pielke

Roger Pielke may refer to:

 * Roger A. Pielke (born 1946), American meteorologist
 * Roger A. Pielke, Jr. (born 1968), American political scientist

title: Roger Pielke


text:
Bongo Comics

Bongo Comics Group was a comic book publishing company founded in 1993 by Matt Groening along with Steve & Cindy Vance and Bill Morrison. It published comics related to the animated television series The Simpsons and Futurama, as well as the SpongeBob SquarePants comics, along with original material. The company was named after Bongo, a rabbit character in Groening's comic strip Life in Hell.

Bongo, at some time in its history, printed Simpsons Comics, Simpsons Comics and Stories, Futurama Comics, Krusty Comics, Lisa Comics, Bart Simpson, Bartman, Itchy & Scratchy Comics and Radioactive Man.

Zongo Comics, also created by Groening, was Bongo Comics' counterpart geared towards mature audiences.

History

Groening launched Bongo Comics Group in 1993, perceiving a lack of funny books in the comic book industry at the time: "I go into comic book stores and look at all the stuff, and, for the most part, it looks like fairly grim science-fiction and superhero stuff ... I guess I just thought there was room out there for funny comic books." The company launched four titles, the bi-monthly Simpsons Comics and Radioactive Man Vol. 1, and the thrice-annually Itchy & Scratchy Comics and Bartman. Groening hoped that the new company would revitalise the industry, and held discussions to publish cross-overs with characters from other publishing companies. The comics use original story-lines rather than simply adapting episodes of the television series; however, in 2011 editor Bill Morrison explained that the stories "fit in with the continuity of the shows."

The company launched Futurama Comics, based on the cartoon series of the same name, in 2000.

2012 saw the company change their logo, and a new creative director was unveiled, with Nathan Kane promoted internally to replace the departing Bill Morrison.

It was announced at San Diego Comic Con in July 2018 that Bongo would be shutting down in October. Simpsons Comics #245 was the final issue released by Bongo.

All series

 * Simpsons Comics (1993–2018) 245 Issues
 * Bartman v1 (1993–1995) 6 Issues
 * Bartman v2 (2017) 3 issues (cover titled Bartman: Spectacularly Super Secret Saga)
 * Itchy & Scratchy Comics (1993–1994) 4 Issues
 * Radioactive Man Vol. 1 (1993–1994) 6 Issues
 * Krusty Comics (1995) 3 Issues
 * Bart Simpson's Treehouse of Horror (1995–2017) 23 Issues
 * Roswell, Little Green Man (1996–1999) 6 Issues
 * Hopster's Tracks (1998-2000) 2 Issues
 * Bart Simpson (2000–2016) 100 Issues
 * Futurama Comics (2000–2017) 83 Issues
 * Radioactive Man Vol. 2 (2000–2004) 9 Issues
 * Futurama Simpsons Infinitely Secret Crossover Crisis (2002–2003) 2 Issues
 * The Simpsons Futurama Crossover Crisis II (2005) 2 Issues
 * Heroes Anonymous (2003–2006) 6 Issues
 * Simpsons Classics (2004–2011) 30 Issues
 * Simpsons Super Spectacular (2005–2012) 16 Issues
 * Bongo Comics Free-For-All (2006-2018) 13 Issues.
 * The Simpsons Winter Wingding (2006–2015) 10 Issues
 * The Simpsons Summer Shindig (2007–2015) 9 Issues
 * Comic Book Guy: The Comic Book (2010) 5 Issues
 * SpongeBob Comics (2011–2018) 85 Issues (distribution, published by United Plankton Pictures)
 * SpongeBob Comics Annual-Size Super-Giant Swimtacular (2013–2018) 6 Issues (distribution, published by United Plankton Pictures)
 * Sergio Aragonés Funnies (2011–2014) 12 Issues
 * Simpsons Illustrated (2012–2017) 28 Issues
 * Simpsons One-Shot Wonders (2012–2018) 18 Issues
 * Mylo Xyloto (2012) 6 Issues

Single issue publications

 * Bongo Comics Group Spectacular (1993)
 * Simpsons Comics and Stories (1993)
 * The Official History of Bongo Comics (Fall 1993)
 * Bartman and Radioactive Man #1 (1994)
 * Lisa Comics (April 1995)
 * Bart Simpson's Joke Book (June 1995)
 * Futurama Comics (July 2000) A 2000 San Diego Comic-Con variant of Futurama Comics #1.
 * Free Comic Book Day: Gimme! Gimme! Giveaway! (2005)
 * Radioactive Man #711 (July 2007) Promotional comic available only at 7-Eleven.
 * San Diego Comic-Con exclusives:
 * Futurama Returns (July 2007)
 * Delivery-Boy Man (July 2010)
 * The Simpsons Best Superhero Stories Ever! The Collector's Edition (July 2011)
 * The Simpsons Go for the Gold (July 2012)
 * Two One-Shot Wonders in One (July 2013): contains The Malevolent Mr. Burns and Professor Frink's Fantastic Science Fictions.
 * The Greatest Bartman Stories Ever Told! (July 2014): contains an assortment of previously published Bartman stories.
 * One-Shot Wonder series:
 * Ralph Wiggum Comics (February 2012)
 * Bart Simpson's Pal, Milhouse (April 2012)
 * Li'l Homer Comics (August 2012)
 * Maggie (October 2012)
 * Professor Frink's Fantastic Science Fictions (February 2013)
 * The Malevolent Mr. Burns (June 2013)
 * The Wonderful World of Lisa Simpson (December 2013)
 * Duffman Adventures (April 2014)
 * Kang & Kodos (August 2014)
 * McBain (December 2014)
 * Jimbo Jones (September 2015)
 * Grampa Simpson's Adventure (December 2015)
 * Krusty the Clown (April 2017) First released digitally through the Simpsons Store app. A print version was released in February 2018.
 * The Mighty Moe Szyslak (June 2017)
 * Chief Wiggum's Felonious Funnies (March 2018)

title: Bongo Comics


text:
Roger A. Pielke Jr.

Roger A. Pielke Jr. (born November 2, 1968) is an American political scientist and professor, and was the director of the Sports Governance Center within the Department of Athletics at the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research at the University of Colorado Boulder.

He previously served in the Environmental Studies Program and was a Fellow of the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences (CIRES) where he served as director of the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research at the University of Colorado Boulder from 2001 to 2007. Pielke was a visiting scholar at Oxford University's Saïd Business School in the 2007–2008 academic year.

A prolific writer, his interests include understanding the politicization of science; decision making under uncertainty; policy education for scientists in areas such as climate change, disaster mitigation, and world trade; and research on the governance of sports organizations, including FIFA and the NCAA.

Education and background
Pielke earned a B.A. in mathematics (1990), an M.A. in public policy (1992), and a Ph.D. in political science, all from the University of Colorado Boulder. Prior to his positions at CU-Boulder, from 1993 to 2001 he was a staff scientist in the Environmental and Societal Impacts Group of the National Center for Atmospheric Research. From 2002 to 2004 Pielke was director of graduate studies for the CU-Boulder Graduate Program in Environmental Studies and in 2001 students selected him for the Outstanding Graduate Advisor Award. Pielke serves on numerous editorial boards and advisory committees, retains many professional affiliations, and sat on the board of directors of WeatherData, Inc. from 2001 to 2006. In 2012 he was awarded an honorary doctorate by Linköping University and the Public Service Award of the Geological Society of America. In 2024 Pielke became a member of the Norwegian Academy of Science and Letters.

Professional writing
Pielke's early work was on the Space Shuttle program. In 1993 he argued that the shuttle was expensive and risky — that it was "probable" that another orbiter would be lost within 20–35 flights. Shortly before the loss of Columbia he warned that loss of another shuttle was only a matter of time. He has also been critical of the space station program.

Pielke has also written extensively on climate change policy. He has written that he accepts the IPCC view of the underlying science, stating, "The IPCC has concluded that greenhouse gas emissions resulting from human activity are an important driver of changes in climate. And on this basis alone I am personally convinced that it makes sense to take action to limit greenhouse gas emissions." He also states that, "Any conceivable emissions reductions policies, even if successful, cannot have a perceptible impact on the climate for many decades", and from this he concludes that, "In coming decades the only policies that can effectively be used to manage the immediate effects of climate variability and change will be adaptive."

On the issues of hurricanes and climate change he has argued that the trend in increasing damage from hurricanes is primarily due to societal and economic factors (chiefly an increase in wealth density), rather than change in the frequency and intensity.

A "Guide to Climate Skeptics" published by Foreign Policy notes that Pielke's published views have led to him being considered by some a "denier" of climate change and by others an "alarmist". In October 2016, in a hacked email disclosed by WikiLeaks, Judd Legum states that a ThinkProgress blog was instrumental in his firing from the FiveThirtyEight website.

In April 2015, Pielke joined with a group issuing An Ecomodernist Manifesto. The other authors were: John Asafu-Adjaye, Linus Blomqvist, Stewart Brand, Barry Brook. Ruth DeFries, Erle Ellis, Christopher Foreman, David Keith, Martin Lewis, Mark Lynas, Ted Nordhaus, Rachel Pritzker, Joyashree Roy, Mark Sagoff, Michael Shellenberger, Robert Stone, and Peter Teague.

Pielke was named in a letter sent by Representative Raúl Grijalva (D-AZ) to institutions that employed scientists who had testified to Congress about climate change. The letter stated, "My colleagues and I cannot perform our duties if research or testimony provided to us is influenced by undisclosed financial relationships," and requested information including the sources and amounts of outside funding for those scientists who had testified.

Pielke rebuked Grijalva's investigation into alleged financial influence on him by fossil fuel companies. "I have no funding, declared or undeclared, with any fossil fuel company or interest. I never have. Representative Grijalva knows this too, because when I have testified before the US Congress, I have disclosed my funding and possible conflicts of interest... the Congressman and his staff, along with compliant journalists, are busy characterizing me in public as a 'climate skeptic' opposed to action on climate change. This of course is a lie. I have written a book calling for a carbon tax, I have publicly supported President Obama’s proposed EPA carbon regulations, and I have just published another book strongly defending the scientific assessment of the IPCC with respect to disasters and climate change." Pielke stated in a blog post published after Grijalva began demanding Pielke's employer to disclose all of Pielke's personal correspondence (including draft letters) as it related to climate science.

Pielke contends that Democratic members of Congress were motivated by political and partisan interests. He believes that he was targeted due to his echoing of IPCC opinion that it is 'incorrect to associate the increasing costs of disasters with the emission of greenhouse gases'.

Publications

 * Editor, with Daniel Sarewitz and Radford Byerly Jr., Prediction: Science, Decision Making, and the Future of Nature, Island Press; New title edition (April 1, 2000), hardcover, 400 pages, ISBN 978-1559637756
 * The Honest Broker: Making Sense of Science in Policy and Politics, Cambridge University Press (May 14, 2007), hardcover, 198 pages, ISBN 978-0521873208
 * The Climate Fix: What Scientists and Politicians Won't Tell You About Global Warming, Basic Books (September 28, 2010), hardcover, 288 pages ISBN 0465020526
 * The Rightful Place of Science: Disasters and Climate Change, Consortium for Science, Policy & Outcomes (November 1, 2014), trade paperback, 124 pages ISBN 978-0692297513
 * The Edge: The War Against Cheating and Corruption in the Cutthroat World of Elite Sports, with Simon Kuper, Roaring Forties Press (29 September 2016), paperback, 288 pages ISBN 978-1938901577
 * List of publications at sciencepolicy.colorado.edu

Interviews

 * "Talking to...Roger Pielke Jr." (video interview with Martin Burckhardt on Ex nihilo)

title: Roger A. Pielke Jr.


text: User talk:67.38.26.42

title: User talk:67.38.26.42


text:
Talk:The Mismeasure of Man

Mismeasure of Science
See the articles "Samuel Morton collection of skulls at center of controversy" (popular version) and "The Mismeasure of Science: Stephen Jay Gould versus Samuel George Morton on Skulls and Bias" (scholarly article). Mateat (talk) 22:33, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It is a bit more complicated. See JM Kaplan, M. Pigliucci, and JA Banta (2015). "Gould on Morton, Redux" Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 30: 1-10. And also Michael Weisberg (2015). "Remeasuring Man" Evolution & Development 16 (3): 166–178. Best, Miguel Chavez (talk) 06:07, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Problem with reanalysis of Morton section
I have a couple of problems with this section: first, it seems by its sheer volume (and also the fact that it is still rapidly expanding) to be close to violation the WP:UNDUE guideline considering it is one paper being reported on, and one about which I haven't sen anyody else has written a review. This brings me to the second problem: in the absence of a review on this paper, it qualifies as a primary source, which is highly discouraged under the terms of Race and Intelligence arbitration case (as I consider this article very much part of "race and intelligence, widely construed"). I'm tempted to outright remove the section, but I'd rather submit my thoughts to discussion raher than act rashly. What do other editors think? Ramdrake 03:03, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

 * Indented line I agree with the above. The article in question has only been cited by one non-scientific article by a subset of the authors. If not deleted entirely, it should at least be collapsed into fewer sentences and lumped with the rest of the Responses to the revised edition. 139.52.164.41 (talk) 17:56, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

 * I copied it into critcism and used the different conclusions of the journal article to sum it up. Larsenat (talk) 01:47, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Paring back the criticism section
The criticism section far outsizes the rest of the article. It needs to be clean up and tightened up, probably to about 1/3 to 1/2 it's current size. aprock (talk) 15:29, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * In an article on a book that's been criticized this much, I think it's normal for the criticism section to take up this much of the article. Take a look at how long the criticism sections are the articles about Race, Evolution, and Behavior and The Bell Curve. In order to be consistent, I think that if it's an issue that the criticism section here takes up half the article, it should be pared back for those other two as well.Boothello (talk) 22:32, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

 * The notion that The Mismeasure of Man, a book that has won many awards and accolades, has received anywhere near the amount of criticism as The Bell Curve, one of the most controversial works of non-fiction of the 20th Century, is absurd. aprock (talk) 22:49, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

 * If that's your belief, then you need to familiarize yourself with the reception that both books received in professional psychology literature. In popular and non-specialist sources, the Bell Curve received a huge amount of criticism, yes, and the popular reception for Mismeasure of Man was largely positive. But for peer-reviewed psychology sources, the reaction to the Mismeasure of Man was overwhelmingly negative, while the reaction to the Bell Curve wasn't strongly one way or another. In fact, some specialist reviews of Mismeasure specifically point out the disparity in reception between popular and professional sources. It's always a bad idea for the weighting of articles at Wikipedia to be based only on popular sources. If anything, sources from experts in the relevant fields should be given more weight than other sources, because these are the sources most qualified to evaluate an author's methodology and conclusions. Boothello (talk) 00:55, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

 * Thank you for your condescending and misinformed perspective. That you might characterize the direct APA response as not being a strong reaction boggles. aprock (talk) 02:36, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

 * Actually, the APA report is a perfect example of what I mean. You likely consider it just a criticism of The Bell Curve, but it's much more nuanced than that. The APA report agreed with Murray and Herrnstein that racial IQ gaps exist, that they aren't the result of test bias or socioeconomic status, and that IQ is a good predictor of academic achievement. Its only big disagreement with Murray and Herrnstein is their conclusion that racial IQ gaps probably have a genetic component. If this single point of disagreement overshadows all of the agreements to you, then you're just seeing what you want to see. For comparison, here is a review of Mismeasure that addresses its overwhelmingly negative reception in the professional literature. Quoting the review: "While the nonscientific reviews of The Mismeasure of Man were almost uniformly laudatory, the reviews in the scientific journals were almost all highly critical." I don't mean to be condescending. Lately you've made a lot of changes really quickly to IQ-related articles that don't get much activity, and part of how a collaborative encyclopedia works is that editors need to have their work checked by other editors. From what I've seen of your edits most are fine, but noone's perfect.Boothello (talk) 03:42, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * By all means, discuss article content and save the condescending attitude for somewhere else. aprock (talk) 04:40, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

 * Dear Aprock: You did good work in condensing the University of Pennsylvania sub-section. I think it now reads more as fair criticism, than as an anti-intellectual hatchet job. Good show! Mhazard9 (talk) 20:15, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

"we find other things to admire..." should be removed.
I removed the last sentence of the "Miscalculation" paragraph, and it was put back in by Aprock. I still think it should be removed, and not for "pedantic" reasons. I mentioned that the authors wrote it "as an aside", and, in fact, it is irrelevant to this article. It talks about Gould's whole "body of work", rather than just Mismeasurement. It seems clear it was a conciliatory expression on the part of the authors, but is really irrelevant to their criticism. Quoting it in this article seems to me an attempt to water down the description of the criticism (but maybe I'm wrong about that). Klortho (talk) 12:50, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

 * Agreed. It's irrelevant what they think about Gould's other work. This is about Mismeasure and their study was about a particular claim in the book.--Victor Chmara (talk) 14:54, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

 * The statement isn't about his "other work", it's about his body of work in total, including Mismeasure. In fact, they mention Mismeasure as a corpus specifically: "particularly his staunch opposition to racism [5]".  Remember, a critique is not just a litany of negative feedback.  The proper way to handle this would be to integrate the various criticism into the article in a natural way as the current format of having a separate section is less desirable. aprock (talk) 22:56, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Why did you put "other work" in quotes? Neither I nor Victor Chmara used that phrase.  I said it was about his 'whole "body of work"'.  Also, you say "a critique is not just a litany of negative feedback".  This section is titled "criticism", not "critique", and while, yes, "criticism" can have the meaning of "an analysis or judgement" (neutral), here it clearly has the meaning "expression of disapproval" (negative) because it is juxtaposed with "Praise" and "Awards" sections.  I would agree that it should be included if it were a positive, or mitigating statement, directly related to the main criticism itself; but it is not.  It is irrelevant. Klortho (talk) 00:06, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I put "other work" in quotes because Victor Chmara used that phrase. As I noted above, the content in question specifically refers to Mismeasure, as evidenced by the clarifying remark that the authors provided and which I included above: ... particularly his staunch opposition to racism [5].  If you refer to the source, the citation to [5] is exactly to Mismeasure. aprock (talk) 00:21, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Re "other work" -- sorry, I don't know how I missed that. Nevertheless, I wasn't confused when I wrote my original post.   Even though this comment is about Mismeasure, it's irrelevant to the criticism, and doesn't belong in this paragraph.  You haven't addressed that argument.  I think the burden is on you to say why it is relevant.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Klortho (talk • contribs) 02:49, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

The argument that only negative criticism from the authors merits inclusion seems a bit off. aprock (talk) 07:53, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi, Aprock, I am relatively new here, so I missed your last comment -- I was thrown by the un-indenting mark (whatever it is called), and hence I assumed you hadn't replied, and took the sentence out again. Anyway, to address your comment, although I would say that "negative criticism" is redundant (as I tried to describe above), I clearly said that "it should be included if it were a positive, or mitigating statement, directly related to the main criticism itself".  So your comment is really a misrepresentation of my argument.  My argument is very simply that it is irrelevant.  Please explain how it is relevant.  Klortho (talk) 01:08, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It is a mitigating statement directly related to The Mismeasure of Man. aprock (talk) 14:40, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Aprock, I compromised more than I wanted to on this ... it's really so minor, why don't you just let it go? Klortho (talk) 03:00, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Please forgive me if I ask, what problem you were trying to address with your edit? aprock (talk) 04:22, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Frankly this paragraph has multiple problems, and should be rewritten from scratch. If you've read the entire Lewis paper, you know that it is overwhelmingly negative, and provides a long list of errors made by Gould.  As I mentioned, it seems clear that this "we find other things to admire" comment was just a conciliatory gesture that they threw out as an aside, and I don't think it belongs in this paragraph, because it is irrelevant to their criticisms.  This section certainly shouldn't end on this note; because that has the effect of diminishing the forcefulness of the criticisms, which are very strong criticisms, by any standard. Klortho (talk) 12:04, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * While the "conciliatory gesture" isn't a large body of the paper, it is presented as part of the conclusion. However, please do feel free to rewrite it and improve the existing summary.  If you do, there are two policies that you should bear in mind.  Most importantly is WP:DUE.  The criticism needs to be presented in the context of the article.  It should not be presented more prominently than other sources used in the article.  Likewise, if you do take the time to rewrite it, consider moving closer to an integrated discussion.  The essay WP:Criticism discusses some of the nuances here.  aprock (talk) 17:55, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

The section headings are far from neutral (and not typical of other articles about books) at the moment.
There is no doubt that The Mismeasure of Man by the late Stephen Jay Gould is one of the most controversial books on its subject, with both avid fans and harsh critics. But Wikipedia has to be a neutral point of view online encyclopedia on this topic just like any other. I'll look over the article sometime, with a goal in mind of getting the section titles back to something more standard for articles about books like "Criticism." Meanwhile, you may find it helpful while reading or editing articles to look at a bibliography of Intelligence Citations, posted for the use of all Wikipedians who have occasion to edit articles on human intelligence and related issues. I happen to have circulating access to a huge academic research library at a university with an active research program in these issues (and to another library that is one of the ten largest public library systems in the United States) and have been researching these issues since 1989. You are welcome to use these citations for your own research. You can help other Wikipedians by suggesting new sources through comments on that page. It will be extremely helpful for articles on human intelligence to edit them according to the Wikipedia standards for reliable sources for medicine-related articles, as it is important to get these issues as well verified as possible. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 12:23, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Reception Section is Ridiculous (POV Tag)
The reception section is 90% psychometricians criticizing the book. Well duh, Gould called them pseudoscientists, what do you think they're going to say? Their conflict of interest makes their commentary hardly relevant. This section is not reflective of a book The Modern Library ranked as the 24th-best English-language non-fiction book of the 20th century and Discover magazine ranked as the 17th-greatest science book of all time. Wikipedia has become over-run with these pseudoscience types attempting to distort public opinion.--TDJankins (talk) 21:11, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

 * Gould, who had no training in psychometrics or behavioral genetics and who never published a single peer-reviewed study on these topics, was heavily criticized by experts in these fields. Wikipedia policies require that the many critical reviews of the book published by experts in reliable sources be discussed in the article. The idea that experts in a particular scientific field have an illegitimate conflict of interest when commenting on critiques of their own field is absurd. By the same logic, articles on creationist works like Darwin's Black Box should not feature the critiques of evolutionary biologists because they have a conflict of interest, or, to take another example, the article on The Trouble with Physics should not include critiques of the book by string theorists.--Victor Chmara (talk) 22:59, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * One needn't any formal training in psychometrics to know it's pseudoscience. One only need an understanding of scientific practice in general.--TDJankins (talk) 21:18, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

 * Gould was one of the judges on that Modern Library panel to choose the best books. Roger (talk) 00:24, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

 * TDJankins, you are free to believe that psychometrics is a pseudoscience or that the US government is controlled by reptilians, or whatever other beliefs you may have, but such outré views are not supported by reliable sources, so they have little or no place in Wikipedia.--Victor Chmara (talk) 21:29, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Propose to remove tag This discussion is >3 years old and section now seems fairly balanced to me. Roy Bateman (talk) 02:32, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Please remove it. Johnuniq (talk) 04:07, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I will remove it. There's lots of praise for the book now, some of which I added recently. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 00:20, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Unbalanced intro
My edit was revertd on the grounds that " introduction needs to be more carefully neutral and more supported by references than this". Okay, fine, but the current intro reads like a promotion for the book, and makes no mention of the fact that a number of peer-reviewed scientific publications say that the book is wrong about some of its main claims. These points are covered later, but there should be some mention in the intro. Roger (talk) 23:28, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The lead should not be a place for he said/she said type argumentation, the studies that claim Gould's critique was wrong, have themselves been critiqued as wrong in peer reviewed journals. The article body is the place to expand on the arguments for and against the book, but the Lead probably should only state objectively that the debates exist and continue.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 04:26, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

 * Why is this paragraph in the intro? There is nothing further down about The Bell Curve other than Murray's denial that Gould quoted him accurately.
 * The revised and expanded, second edition of the Mismeasure of Man (1996) analyzes and challenges the methodological accuracy of The Bell Curve (1994), by Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray. Gould said the book re-presented the arguments of what Gould terms biological determinism, which he defines as "the abstraction of intelligence as a single entity, its location within the brain, its quantification as one number for each individual, and the use of these numbers to rank people in a single series of worthiness, invariably to find that oppressed and disadvantaged groups—races, classes, or sexes—are innately inferior and deserve their status."[4]
 * I suggest moving some of this down to an identifiable subsection on Gould's criticism of The Bell Curve, which really ought to be expanded considerably - especially if the authors make four assumptions, any one of which if falsified makes their entire argument collapse. --Uncle Ed (talk) 16:57, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, the scientific racism community is growing
TDJankins wrote: Wikipedia has become over-run with these pseudoscience types attempting to distort public opinion.

It has, and there's little we can do about it. I've been following the issue of scientific racism for a while now and believe it is in the process of becoming mainstream (that, of course, says little about its veracity yet much about our society). Indeed, this entire article reads as if Rushton himself had wrote it. No, I'm not a psychometrist but not an idiot either, I'm a medical student and it doesn't take much to see the bias in this article. TauschCJ (talk) 03:42, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 04:27, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

 * I just moved this section to the bottom of the talk page (to fit chronological arrangement of comments on the talk page) before replying here. I think there is no sign that scientific racism is becoming mainstream in any English-speaking country, but rather is considerably less mainstream than half a century ago. But it takes a lot of digging in reliable sources to figure out what the current mainstream view of any topic is. I devote most of my reading time to psychology handbooks, review articles, and textbooks (all reliable sources for Wikipedia articles, besides the primary research papers I read, which are not Wikipedia reliable sources in general) and I have a good sense of what the mainstream view is, inside and outside the field of psychology, about the late Professor Gould's book. The book is generally well liked by people who are critical of IQ testing before they come to his book, but panned by people who know the research literature on the psychology of IQ testing well. This article here is an article about the book, so the best sources to look at, in the first instance, are all the reviews and commentaries we can find about the book. I would expect a balanced article on Wikipedia about the book to reflect what appears in the literature: that many nonspecialists in psychology continue to like the book, and many specialists in psychology (including many who resolutely research and refute scientific racism as a movement and as a set of conclusions about humankind) think the book had serious flaws in its arguments or recitations of historical facts., seeing your comment here, and noting that you are new to Wikipedia, I invite you to look at my  source list on IQ testing and psychology so that you have an opportunity to recommend new sources to me and to look up sources found on the list that may be new to you. This article will improve if several editors agree to dig into the sources and revise the article according to the sources. I have seen that happen on several contentious articles. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 13:34, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on The Mismeasure of Man. 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.skeptic.com/archives24.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050310013515/http://www.ssc.uwo.ca/psychology/faculty/rushtonpdfs/Gould.pdf to http://www.ssc.uwo.ca/psychology/faculty/rushtonpdfs/Gould.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050310013515/http://www.ssc.uwo.ca/psychology/faculty/rushtonpdfs/Gould.pdf to http://www.ssc.uwo.ca/psychology/faculty/rushtonpdfs/Gould.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) 12:50, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

added positive review and two positive mentions
There's a note that the page needed more reviews that were positive. Anyone know how old that note is or how close we would be to the right balance? Jonathan Tweet (talk) 23:50, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Here's hoping we can all work together by sticking to good WP practices. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 00:21, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

The claim that the book was 'poorly received by scientists' is problematic
This page often prominently displays Bernard Davis's claim that the book was well-recieved in the "popular" or "literary" press but panned in scientific journals. The implication is obvious.

Gould in the prelude to the revised edition counters: "As I explained and documented, Mr. Davis had only read a few reviews, probably in publications that he liked, or that had been sent to him by colleagues sharing his political persuasions. I, thanks to my publisher's prodigious clipping service, had all the reviews. I picked out twenty-four written by academic experts in psychology and found fourteen positive, three mixed, and seven negative (nearly all these by hereditarian mental testers-what else would one expect?)"

In light of this, presenting Davis's characterization as a factual and unbiased summary is irresponsible. At best one could write that certain critics *claim* the book was poorly received by the scientific community or characterize the reception as such but this claim is neither obviously true nor made by unbiased sources. Jhodders (talk) 16:11, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

 * Jhodders is 100% correct here. I've been meaning to work on improving this article for some time but haven't had an opportunity yet. I would encourage anyone with the time and energy to tackle this. The current treatment of this book appears to be a holdover from a recent era when race-and-intelligence truthers held sway over the topic. Gould's views on the matter were clearly well received by other scientists, as is evinced e.g. by this secondary source: . Generalrelative (talk) 23:11, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Your comment, and the text in the article, assume that Gould was right in his description and enumeration of the reviews. He was not in psychology, so how would he know which reviewers were experts, especially experts on technical matters like psychometrics, "g" and factor analysis?  He summarily dismissed the negative reviews as coming from hereditarian mental testers but if the data are hereditarian (here the term refers to heredity for individual differences, not groups) then that's the way the experts lean. Gould simply discounts their opinions as self-interest, which is the same sort of treatment he accorded Morton. Are we to assume that Gould himself had no self interest that might lead him to fudge the story here?  And that his positive reviewers were impartial oracles whose word should not be subject to casual dismissal? If somebody uninvolved did a census of reviews that would be more credible.
 * Another point is that the idea of Gould being lionized in the popular press and criticized by scientific peers is not a meme that Davis coined. It appears independently from experts in evolutionary theory, which was Gould's own subject, talking about how he was viewed in their field versus outside of it. Sesquivalent (talk) 07:36, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

 * I think you're reading into what I wrote both here and in the article. Davis and Gould are both appreciably biased here, all I'm saying is that it's irresponsible to present either perspective as neutral. If you find such an 'uninvolved' outside census (a notion that Gould persuasively problematizes in the book imo but that's neither here nor there) feel free to edit it in but otherwise these are two valid perspectives that a neutral article can't take a side in. Frankly Gould seems more credible to me(*), but making that assessment isn't our prerogative.

 * (*) For one, I don't think one has to be working in a specific field to identify who is or isn't an expert in it. As Gould explains in the book, science isn't a matter of eliminating personal biases (the delusion of having done so just makes one more susceptible to them) but attempting to acknowledge and compensate for them and then submit your work for peer review. This is just to say: if there's a critique of Gould's methodology in determining which reviews are positive and which are negative, we have to assume some critic of his would make it. In the absence of that I see no grounds whatsoever to question the enumeration. Jhodders (talk) 05:40, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:The Mismeasure of Man