text:
Talk:Paul R. Ehrlich

Biography needs Wikipedia Webmaster/ Moderator Lockdown
As of December 2005 this biography is still slanted against this great ecologist. Dr. Paul Ehrlich has been a respected Senior Professor of Population Studies at Stanford University for over three decades. This bio makes him sound like some weird insect specialist shouting "Everyone will die at age 42...."

I tried several times to edit this article with a more accurate biography, and each time, the same neocon extremist blogger reverted article to his own hateful inaccurate version. This ability to distort biography is a flaw of Wikipedia.

I have reviewed WikiQuote page, and these quotes are accurate as of December 2005-- I have tapes of these lectures from PBS and National Public Radio. Problem is prose of main article. Part of problem is Ehrlich's famous big-mouth. In heat of debate he often says deliberately alarming things for dramatic effect. Such alarmist claims should not be mistaken for scholarship. He is an easy target because it is easy to quote him out of context in such debates. I could write a more accurate article myself but I know that same neocon extremist would just vandalize it again.

To get a better definitive biography and meaning of his work I would say Ehrlich himself or his wife or staff should write it or approve it-- then Wikipedia should lock it to prevent further neocon anti-ecology vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.37.39.176 (talk • contribs)
 * Your comments are not based in reality. First, this article has rarely been edited since the summer. Second, I don't see who this "neo-con blogger" is or where he has made a habit of reverting your edits. Third, I don't see where yo've ever edited this article. Fourth, your suggestion for moving forward is entirely inappropriate and violates everything that Wikipedia stands for. -Willmcw 22:19, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

This biography is a lot better today than it was a year ago. I still feel article content focuses too much on Ehrlich's "failed predictions" rather than his basic warning about ecologically sustainable Carrying Capacity. By steering content towards his failures, one still gets the impression that he was basically wrong, just some extremist shouting "We're all going to starve and die at 42!" If he was such an extremist, Stanford University would not have kept him as tenured professor for three decades, he would not have won so many awards, and would not have found an audience for so many books. In fact, Ehrlich is basically right*: Our species should live within our ecological Carrying Capacity based on the I=PAT formula and voluntarily stop at two children per family. I feel his basic message should be more obvious, considering it is the single most important message of the 21st century. (* Quite right! It is the facts that are wrong)

Such a message, that we should stop at two children, is controversial and serves as a lightning rod for his enemies. Ehrlich's message is correct but I readily admit Ehrlich has a big-mouth--When Ehrlich rants on public lectures and forums, he often shouts alarmist exaggerations and glaring howlers for dramatic effect.

Search "Overpopulation" on Yahoo and the top result is Overpopulation.com, a neocon extremist group which openly claims "overpopulation does not and will not ever exist!" Its Discussion chatroom is filled with hateful threads against Ehrlich and ecologists.

My running battle with a neocon occured in December 2004: Click Article, click History, scroll to December 30 2004:  I was 63.231... and neocon was "TDC." Take a look at User Info for TDC: He describes himself as a "neocon troll" who vandalizes websites. Ehrlich's biography at that time said absurd stuff like, "Ehrlich, Planned Parenthood and the ACLU ruined America's population." That's troll vandalism. I tried to get rid of it a few times then gave up. Neocon troll won that battle.

Other neocon I disagree with is Willmcw. If he advocates "neo-confederates" as his User Info suggests, he is blood enemy of Ehrlich and ecologists. Willmcw wanted to place the bet with Julian Simon in its own section for maximum emphasis. This bet was Ehrlich's biggest public blunder, proving Ehrlich could be hoodwinked by the Cato Institute, Julian Simon's neocon think-tank. Any economist could see that harvesting natural resources is getting easier due to improving technology. Ehrlich was a fool for taking that bet. Anyone who wants to emphasize that bet is no advocate of Ehrlich. There is no mention of Ehrlich's second bet proposed in 1990's which focused on species biodiversity and habitat, which Simon refused to accept.

My last point, that Wikipedia is vulnerable to troll vandalism, is sad but true. Due to a recent famous Wikipedia biography scandal involving troll vandalism, my university just sent notice to all students, informing us to no longer use Wikipedia as a reference or resource in our papers, because content cannot be trusted. Due to troll vandalism, Wikipedia is now reduced to a minor diversion away from quotable Internet research. I don't see any solution except for Wiki webmasters to lock content when needed. As long as trolls are allowed to vandalize entries with subtle subversive point of view, any controversial article remains highly vulnerable to vandalism.

By the way, I only wrote this one "biography needs lockdown" discussion. Above criticisms come from other people. Anyone familiar with Ehrlich's work would find this current biography slanted towards his failures. I won't bother fixing article, since some neocon will just erase my fix again. Adios Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.37.39.176 (talk • contribs)

 * Reading this discussion in September 2022 and especially the voice of the unsigned "neocons are everywhere" detector while proclaiming "Ehrlich is a genius" and brilliant entomologist seems so far removed from reality even more than it seemed to be 17 years ago. This emotional state expressed here is very strange, to say the least; in support of Ehrlich, a "scientist" who most likely was and continues to be one of the most failed scientists whose "scientific" predictions were wrong more than any other scientist's yet, who's highly regarded and described as brilliant and a scientist. By the way, I wonder, if Ehrlich is so good entomologist, why there are so few words about his achievements in this field of research. 24.225.161.193 (talk) 04:02, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Apparently this is controversial?
There's the diff

Is it controversial to say that he's best known for his wildly inaccurate predictions? I put in a whole boatload of sources. Is it controversial to use his own words to inform readers that he said that India needs to be left to die so that other, less "hopeless" countries can thrive? I don't see the issue here. Red  Slash  19:12, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

 * Your edits are highly POV as they fail to incorporate the entirety of his views and you clearly have selected a narrow range of sources, some of them right-wing and libertarian think tanks like Foundation for Economic Education and American Enterprise Institute, which are highly critical of the subject of the article. Furthermore, shoehorning this material into the lead sentence gives undue weight to these opinion pieces, and is out of balance with the body off the article which is more neutral in tone. The edits made are clearly designed to pillory the subject, and this is highly problematic for a WP:BLP. I'm adding a neutrality template so as not to engage in edit warring, and to allow others to opine on the matter here on talk.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 19:23, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
 * User C.J. Griffin is a left-winger (socialist too—surprise, surprise) who wants to expunge all right-learning sources from articles and leave only left-wing ones, contrary to Wikipedia's policy on neutrality. 2601:547:500:4E80:1C40:B264:BF08:2B15 (talk) 22:31, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I mean, I could've added more, like the New York Times or the Wall Street Journal or the Financial Post or ... The edits were made in an attempt to provide at least a little bit of context to what is otherwise a borderline hagiographic article. The dude is famous for predictions. What sort of predictions? Grandiose and wildly incorrect predictions. That's not POV. Omitting that information is POV. Red   Slash  23:53, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Read the article and the lead. That his predictions were wrong is certainly not omitted. What makes it POV is now your edits have the article coming out swinging against its subject in the very first sentence using belligerent language. And his recent research on biodiversity loss and demographics in collaboration with numerous prestigious biologists and ecologists is barely mentioned, let alone that his views on the issue have evolved over time, and certainly not in the lead. It's almost as though some want to give the impression all he wrote was a controversial book in the 1960s and his predictions were all wrong, and that's the crux of the story.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 01:08, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, that's what he's most notable for, so that's what the lead of the article should be about. Of course he's done a lot of things in his life, but the most famous thing was the book he wrote about how there would be widespread famine within fifteen years. Junius Brutus Booth was a super-famous actor of his time, but read the lead and you'd think all he ever did was father the murderer of Abraham Lincoln. Donald Trump in 2006 had a perfectly normal article about a businessman and then he went and ran for President and his page is completely different now--and from the lead you'd never know that he had been notable enough for his own article prior to entering politics. Deep Blue Something has been recording music since 1991 and the article's lead makes it seem like they just sat around for decades after creating Breakfast at Tiffany's.
 * The lead, as of now, makes very clear the class of predictions that Ehrlich made, contextualizing things for the reader. What, do you expect our article on Titanic to start with "The Titanic was a ship that attempted a voyage from Europe to America" and only later in the article give the context about how that voyage went? Would you consider it "coming out swinging" against the Titanic to say that it sank? Then why would you say we're "coming out swinging" against Paul by starting with how his most noteworthy predictions also sank? Red   Slash  01:52, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I guess one difference between those examples and this article is that none of the former include in the first sentence a phrase with such a negative phrase as "wildly inaccurate", which is, by the way, pretty subjective. It's enough to say he's known for his pessimistic predictions, and it seems prejudicial to claim they were "wildly" inaccurate, even if they were certainly inaccurate in certain respects. Who shall judge whether the predictions were wildly inaccurate, or more tamely inaccurate? Maybe the reader, but not the editor, unless they can get a plethora of sources using the same language applied broadly to all his significant opera vitae. Mention the controversy and maybe, conservatively, inaccuracies. The important thing is that this is an article about a living person who has had a serious, well-respected intellectual career, and although I will admit I don't like his outlook, we should be extremely careful about prejudicing anyone who comes to find out about him. JGT Webb (talk) 06:14, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
 * "Who shall judge whether the predictions were wildly inaccurate, or more tamely inaccurate?" I would propose WP:RS should judge that, and they have, and the verdict is in: wildly inaccurate. As an aside, "they were certainly inaccurate in certain respects" is one of the greatest understatements I've ever read.
 * The man predicted that by 1972 there would be no sense in planning for the future because the world would be doomed. He predicted that England would cease to exist by 2000 (and when mocked for that prediction after the fact, said "well, they have problems, just like everyone else"). He prognosticated an end to marine animal life by 1980. How would you categorize those predictions? "Tamely inaccurate"?? Really?
 * The reason that we can't "mention the 'controversy'", frankly, is that there is not a controversy at all. To my knowledge, there are no reliable, secondary sources in the modern era that present his predictions in any light other than inaccuracy.
 * You say "The important thing is that this is an article about a living person who has had a serious, well-respected intellectual career", but the world is full of people who have had a serious, well-respected intellectual career, and they don't have a Wikipedia article because they're not notable. Erhlich is notable only because of his widely propagated predictions. How would you describe those predictions? Were they accurate or not? Not. Were they mildly inaccurate or wildly inaccurate? Based on the number of fish in the ocean, the lack of famines in democratic India, the continued existence of the United Kingdom, and most shocking of all, the fact that even after 1972 life appears to be continuing... I've got to say, looks wildly inaccurate to me. And more significantly, not just to me, but also to a whole lot of reliable sources who are linked in the first paragraph. Red   Slash  15:39, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Don't revert without discussing
Red  Slash  23:32, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
 * The WP:ONUS is on you to justify why this material should remain, not on those who object to its inclusion. Your edits to this article have been reverted by myself and User:Ungulates, whose edit summary stated that your rewrite constituted a "partisan attack dripping with contempt for the subject, which is obviously not NPOV."--C.J. Griffin (talk) 01:12, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
 * No one has responded to the points that I've made above. The claims that I've added are all well-sourced and should remain; a flat-out revert of dozens of sentences of new, sourced additions should never be carried out.
 * Let's explore the diff. What do you have problems with?
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paul_R._Ehrlich&diff=1143362297&oldid=1143319732
 * Lead:
 * I rewrote the lead sentence to explain that he's famous for wildly inaccurate predictions. That assertion was heavily sourced.
 * I included the quote about letting countries like India starve to death, which is from the main article text
 * I contextualized his being called an "irrepressible doomster"--it's important to know the context was him saying that all marine wildlife would die by 1990.
 * Early life:
 * Included that he's not related to the Nobel winner.
 * Pop Bomb
 * The first paragraph used to end with the, frankly buried, "No such famine occurred" followed by an immediate justification of the author's viewpoints. This is unconsciousable and does not reflect the way the book has been perceived by reliable sources. I gave it its own paragraph and contextualized it.
 * I removed the silly statement "Ehrlich 's opinions have evolved over time," because, umm, everybody's opinions evolve over time.
 * I clarified that India was an example of a "hopeless" country.
 * The following three paragraphs are newish, but largely taken from the longstanding The Population Bomb article.
 * After 2000
 * Minor rewording for clarification and context.
 * Rewrote a bit, but I don't think anything major is written here. I did change that the population disaster has "completely" failed to materialize, rather than "largely"--lol, have you seen population figures? "Largely"? Who did write this originally? Sources back up that the disaster completely failed to materialize.
 * Reception
 * I removed one word, "allegedly". Arguably that word could be reintroduced, if you think it necessary.
 * I look forward to hearing what problems anyone has with the edits to the article. Red   Slash  08:23, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

 * (Also, please forgive if I missed anything in my synopsis of the changes. I assure you I'm not trying to slip anything by anyone, which is why I posted the diff right there. If I missed anything, PLEASE say something.) Red   Slash  08:25, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
 * C.J. Griffin is a left-winger and socialist. The only problem with the referenced material you're adding to the article is that it's inconvenient for his ideology. That's a big no-no. Hence why he was whining about the fact that you included some right-learning sources among the ones you used. 2601:547:500:4E80:1C40:B264:BF08:2B15 (talk) 22:38, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Thoughts on this revision?
It's been a couple weeks and no one has had any response to the sourced material, until very recently a slew of edits have been made to somewhat change the tone of the article. It's possible those changes are valid. I did revert them in order to bring them to talk: the other editor's edit would be on the left, and the version that had been in place previously is on the right.

Big changes include:

 * 1) removing the words "incorrect" and "erroneously" from the lead
 * 2) putting a "by whom" template (even though the statement literally is referenced, lol)
 * 3) general softening of language (perhaps with some merit; "did not come true" might well be better than "were completely incorrect")
 * 4) removing a thoroughly sourced paragraph about the book becoming an object of ridicule
 * 5) removing a sourced paragraph that he's never admitted responsibility for his wildly inaccurate predictions
 * 6) helpfully added a source to the statements made by Gardner (nicely done, definitely should be restored)

Any thoughts? Red  Slash  19:54, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

 * I oppose most of these edit reversions. I think that a Wikipedia article should be more of a neutral description about a person/event instead of a hit piece against a particular person, with often questionable sources cited. Please see my edit descriptions for more details. Kamtal75 (talk) 00:13, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I saw the edit descriptions for sure. I watched that video you linked--super informative, thank you--and in it, he literally says, and I quote:
 * "The critics go in, and look at these little stories, that won't come true, and when they didn't come true, say 'Ehrlich was wrong'. I was recently criticized because I had said many years ago that I would bet that England wouldn't exist in the year 2000. Well, England did exist in the year 2000, but that was only 14 years ago." ... he didn't admit he was wrong, he just moved the goalposts.
 * Again, we absolutely aim for a neutral point of view. That doesn't mean that we avoid saying that the Titanic sank, saying that the Challenger shuttle failed to launch, or noting that Gideon Pillow performed poorly as a general. If there are questionable sources, highlight them or remove them, but it's a bit much to remove a statement that's sourced by several sources just because one of the sources might not qualify as "reliable". Red   Slash  02:38, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
 * These are pretty good points. I do think, however, that Paul Ehrlich's acknowledging that England did not collapse in the year 2000 as he predicted does qualify as publicly admitting to being (at least partially) wrong.
 * With respect to the relatively new edits in the article concerning phrasing, I generally object to hyperbolic language such as "completely incorrect" and "wildly inaccurate." Seems like a bit of editorializing to me. Kamtal75 (talk) 03:50, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
 * He doesn't even say "I was wrong", he just said the factual statement that disproves his prediction (but doesn't... actually... like... admit he was wrong) and immediately tries to justify it. (His further justification was that "they have problems", which... sounds like he's reaching to justify himself.) If that statement is enough to prove he admitted he was wrong, then what wouldn't have qualified? I mean, what, would he have to pretend that England doesn't exist?
 * And, to me, "wildly inaccurate" seems like a fair summary of the sources. It's not just "inaccurate" to say that England won't exist in 2000. It was wildly inaccurate. It wasn't just "inaccurate" to say that all marine life was going to disappear. It was wildly inaccurate. Etc. I don't view that as non-neutral with regard to the sources, but I would love to see how you'd phrase that in a way that might better satisfy neutrality. Red   Slash  04:23, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
 * OK, will do Kamtal75 (talk) 15:51, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Strongly disagree. What this constitutes is improper synthesis of sources and editorializing. Nonsensical comparisons to the Titanic and the space shuttle Challenger aside, this is totally unacceptable for a WP:BLP. I'll be adding additional tags for readers to see what is disputed. It should be noted that four different editors have either reverted or significantly removed disputed material from the current version, indicating there is NO CONSENSUS for this version of the article, yet it keeps being restored, violating WP:ONUS as I mentioned earlier. I propose it be rolled back to the long standing consensus version prior to the recent additions which numerous editors have issues with, which included significant criticisms of Erhlich's predictions without being so lopsided.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 16:20, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
 * And multiple editors have also expressed support for those inclusions, or have expressed certain reservations, while supporting the rest... and meanwhile, as no one has made any effort at all to answer the reasoning for the edits (just saying "nonsensical" doesn't count for much; why in the world is this nonsensical?), no, it's correct to leave it as such until someone can give actual reasons for why the changes I made are wrong.  Red   Slash  21:47, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree with the roll-back proposal from User:C.J. Griffin. No need to push all these changes in one single contentious edit. There's no urgency on any of this. Introduce changes one by one, so there can be more focused discussion on the merits of each proposed change.—Myasuda (talk) 02:39, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me Kamtal75 (talk) 06:40, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Definitely no urgency. These changes were all introduced over the course of many edits, and then summarily rolled-back as one, so I'm not sure how you'd even like to proceed. But of course, there's no urgency, and you're absolutely right about that. We can chill, take our time, and make the article the best it can be. Red   Slash  18:12, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
 * The phrase "wildly inaccurate" has no place in a Wikipedia page. The head as a whole is far too one sided and anything but neutral. SouthernResidentOrca (talk) 17:52, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that a consensus is starting to form around reverting to the long standing version. Anyone else want to voice their opinion? I’m considering rolling the article back, but would like a stronger consensus before doing so.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 20:33, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Wildly
The phrase "wildly inaccurate" occurs over all sorts of articles on Wikipedia--it is not POV to say that something is "wildly inaccurate" when indeed it is wildly inaccurate. Edward_Davies_(Celtic), Historia Regum Britanniae, Guelph Transit; the list goes on and on and on and on.

The best parallel is The Amazing Criswell (which I have not ever edited); they're both from roughly the same timespan (he's a little older than Paul) and they both received intense fame from making predictions that were largely completely divorced from what would eventually happen. There's still marine wildlife. England? Still a thing, actually. American life expectancy is still quite a ways above 40. Etc. Anyway, Criswell's lead sentence reads "Jeron Criswell King (August 18, 1907 – October 4, 1982), known by his stage-name The Amazing Criswell /ˈkrɪzwɛl/, was an American psychic known for wildly inaccurate predictions." And while Ehrlich may be a scientist and Criswell may have been a psychic, the accuracy of their predictions is eerily similar.

So if the phrase is good enough for Criswell, it's good enough for Ehrlich. The thing he's most famous for is undoubtedly the doom-and-gloom predictions which generally turned out to be absolute baloney. But while "absolute baloney" isn't very encyclopedic, "wildly inaccurate" is.. Red  Slash  22:42, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

 * I think that it isn't fair to make a comparison between a psychic and a scientist. As I have written before, I feel that a Wikipedia article needs more objective phrasing with less editorializing.
 * I am in favor of Griffin's suggestion of rolling the article back to an earlier version. Kamtal75 (talk) 23:19, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 * It's not "editorializing"; that's an accurate summary of what our sources say about his predictions. Red   Slash  18:38, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * "Wildly inaccurate" isn't encyclopedic. I moved your sources to the criticism section of the head next to the statements you wrote in that section SouthernResidentOrca (talk) 22:22, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
 * "Wildly Inaccurate" is not how wikipedia articles should be written, especially in the lede, and it doesn't follow guidelines like WP:IMPARTIAL and WP:WTW. The presence of the term in other wikipedia articles doesn't have any bearing on this at all, wikipedia has millions of articles, many of which are not written well. Tristario (talk) 04:21, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

 * I agree that the term "Wildly Inaccurate" should not be used in any WP article. The fact that it might appear in other articles, is not a valid argument for inclusion here.  There are many articles on WP that need editing.  That is no reason why we should allow this article to be poorly written with such a non-neutral POV.  I think it is clear from the user's history, that Red Slash has a bias.  This needs to stop, IMHO.  174.171.71.34 (talk) 18:52, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

 * But they are wildly inaccurate, and the sources both support that conclusion and the emphasis. It is not enough to say that you don't like the phrasing, as a basis to remove it. The same, or similar, phrasing, is used in other articles without question; so why is it inappropriate here? Removing it would create an unduly pro-Ehrlich point of view. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 16:17, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Again
No editor has provided a single reference that states that his predictions were anything other than wildly inaccurate. The unwillingness to call a spade a spade. The dude predicted that by 1972 there would be no point living for the future because total societal collapse would at that point be inevitable. There would be no major marine wildlife by like 1980. Etc. His predictions have been repeatedly and pointedly ridiculed across a wide variety of major and reliable sources, and no sources to the contrary have been found.

WP:NPOV essentially requires us to call the predictions something along the lines of "wildly inaccurate" in the lead, just like with another dude from that era who publicly and repeatedly made extravagant predictions that completely failed to materialize. The fact that one dressed up his predictions with "science" and one dressed them up as "supernatural" doesn't change that both men made predictions that were wildly inaccurate, and which are repeatedly referred to as such by our reliable sources. Red  Slash  18:12, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

 * TL;DR: Needs to be less inflammatory.
 * I'm no fan of Ehrlich, but I agree with others that the language is not what it should be. I have little sympathy or respect for Ehrlich and got to his page to look at how he was treated. I expected to find some type of objectionable hagiography. What I found instead was something whose inflammatory language was questionable enough that I looked to the talk page for some explanation. I think that it's fair that it is made clear that some of his pronouncements were over-the-top, biased, and downright silly. However, I think that the language you frame it in actually weakens your point. It looks more like a hit piece than an encyclopedic article. Compare to the (in my opinion biased in the opposite direction) entry at Britannica: Britannica, T. Editors of Encyclopaedia (2023, May 25). Paul R. Ehrlich. Encyclopedia Britannica. [Https://www.britannica.com/biography/Paul-R-Ehrlich https://www.britannica.com/biography/Paul-R-Ehrlich]
 * You have spent some time supporting your criticism, at least some of which is warranted. I would suggest you put in a little more effort to tone down the POV language and bring the volume of critical references in line with a NPOV.
 * For what it's worth, I am a hard-core socialist with an activist background and I don't at all fall in line with modern-day (purportedly) 'leftist' talking points, particularly of the 'sky is falling' kind. What disturbs me is that, from a biological point of view, population is an extreme and persistent problem that will not go away. It should be top of mind in terms of a going forward policy because it *will* bite us in the ass without positive measures to keep it under control. Sensationalizing the issue has done much more harm than good. How many people can actually articulate both why the concern is valid, and the proximate dire predictions are invalid? Like other 'sky is falling' narratives the flame and noise obscures the issue to the point that the discourse is broken. Bottom line, I think the article should make it clear that a lot of noise was made that was unscientific and not constructive without making editorial judgments that are inconsistent with an encyclopedia. DeepNorth (talk) 14:57, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I respect your position and how you've borne it out here. I'm still not sure what language here is inflammatory. Were there any particular phrases that seemed to stand out to you? Your perspective would be tremendously valuable. Red   Slash  00:00, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

And it's certainly not dubious
You might consider it "not the most encyclopedic" to call it "wildly inaccurate" but I don't think anyone calls it dubious, especially not our sources Red   Slash  19:26, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

18 years later and this article still sucks
Literally 18 years since the first mention of bias in this article and it's still there. A baby born when the first topic was added on this talk page can vote now. The page literally starts saying he was best known for his "pessimistic" and untrue views. I'm going to try to make this article more neutral, but i'm sure that by the end of next month someone will edit it back to it's current state. Qwexcxewq (talk) 02:34, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

 * Would you argue that his views are... uh... not untrue? Red   Slash  19:35, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
 * He's not notable for his "views", but rather his predictions.
 * His most famous predictions include that all marine life would end before the new millennium arrived, that England would cease to exist, and that mass worldwide famines were inevitable.
 * How would you classify these predictions? Do you not consider them pessimistic? Or inaccurate? Red   Slash  20:00, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
 * This is not what he is notable for at all. He is notable for his work in population biology. Viriditas (talk) 02:51, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Really? That runs counter to what the wealth of reliable sources that we have says. Red   Slash  20:25, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Here is the biographical entry from the Encyclopedia Britannica. Please pay attention to the differences between their article and our own. Viriditas (talk) 20:45, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
 * It's a blurb. It's 226 words. That's not an article. Red   Slash  07:56, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Google Scholar is instructive, as are his citations and indexes. It does not seem to support your assertion. Viriditas (talk) 08:48, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I mean, he was objectively wrong in his predictions: . I do think that undue weight is given to it. It should maybe come a bit further down in the lede, and maybe have the wording tweaked a bit -- especially the hostile tone. Maybe, instead of:
 * "Paul Ralph Ehrlich (born May 29, 1932) is an American biologist best known for his pessimistic and inaccurate predictions and warnings about the consequences of population growth and limited resources."
 * We change it to:
 * "Paul Ralph Ehrlich (born May 29, 1932) is an American biologist. He is best known for his book, The Population Bomb, in which he inaccurately predicted resource depletion and widespread famine as a result of population growth."
 * How does that sound? Any revisions? Thoughts? Professor Penguino (talk) 02:35, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * That's pretty good, honestly. I see how that addresses the concerns of other people without devolving into the hagiography of the article as I found it eight months ago, or the glossing over of how his claim to fame was based on false predictions. While it isn't the lead I'd write if this were my own article (which obviously it isn't), it's pretty stinking good. Red   Slash  17:02, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks! If no one objects, I'll add it to the lede. Professor Penguino (talk) 19:02, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

You may want to look carefully at the concerns expressed on this page and in the page history, with special attention paid to the sources used by Red Slash for the last "eight months" they have edit warred and violated NPOV and turned this article into a hit piece. It was not a hagiography when they arrived here, it was well sourced and well referenced. Your agreement to alter the lead to the satisfaction of Red Slash, the very person who has written the NPOV-violating version under discussion with poor sourcing, does not sit well with me. The better solution is to revert to the pre-Red Slash version and start from there. Please take a look at that version and make suggestions. The current version is not acceptable and uses unreliable sources like Bjørn Lomborg and others. Viriditas (talk) 20:32, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

 * Professor Penguino (talk) 08:06, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree with Viriditas, and in fact made the same suggestion months ago.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 15:56, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I would first like to note that my proposed changes to the lede were not just for Red Slash, I was trying to make the lede more NPOV. You can feel free to workshop it if you want. I think what needs to be done is a quick review of all the article's sources (especially that unreliable one you mentioned), although I'm not sure how reverting the page to what it was 8 months ago would work. We can wait from input from other editors. This article definitely doesn't adhere to WP:NPOV standards. Professor Penguino (talk) 21:11, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 * ... I didn't think that counting to eight would be controversial.
 * I have not "turned it into a hit piece"; I have made edits that present the subject accurately per the reliable sources that have been gathered here.
 * I have absolutely not "edit warred"; I have made edits, people have disagreed and reverted me, I have explained myself on the talk page, people have failed to respond (perhaps because their arguments are indefensible?) and then I've simply carried out the original edits I made.
 * I hear the arguments that this article has a POV but I note that every time I've asked for any quotes of text that are actually POV, nobody's provided any (other than "wildly", used to describe "inaccurate", which I myself ultimately removed from the article lead), and I simply don't see it, and nobody has pointed it out, either. I think this article is as impartial as one can be about someone whose claim to fame is based completely on a series of bold, eye-catching and largely inaccurate assertions and predictions. Red   Slash  20:41, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * You have edit warred, it is logged in the article history, you have repeatedly added and re-added edits against consensus, and you keep doing this in violation of our most basic policies. Stop.  You just now reinstated disputed edits against three editors on this page. Viriditas (talk) 20:46, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I am still waiting for any reason why it's incorrect to mention that the predictions for which he is famous are pessimistic and incorrect. Red   Slash  20:48, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * No, I am not playing this game. The problem with your edits has been repeatedly explained to you over the last year.  There are three people in this discussion who disagree with you.  We do not have to wait for you to "get it". Viriditas (talk) 20:50, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I continue waiting for any reason why it's incorrect to mention that the predictions for which he is famous are pessimistic and incorrect. Eight months, still waiting. Red   Slash  20:55, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * You've been given answers to your questions, over and over again, for the last year. C.J. Griffin directly answered you up above on this page in February; you edit warred throughout the year against multiple editors who disagreed with your failure to adhere to NPOV. This was recently explained to you on the NPOV noticeboard with no sign of understanding.  You are engaging in "I didn't hear that", which is categorized as disruptive editing. "Editors who persistently disrupt Wikipedia, knowingly or unknowingly, may be blocked or banned indefinitely." Asking the same question, over and over again, when you've already been given answers, is disruption.  Look at the number of Wikipedia editors up above who disagree with your edits.  I will list them here for you. Viriditas (talk) 21:02, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * It's called WP:EDITORIALIZING. Yes, many of his predictions were inaccurate, but saying "pessimistic" and "obvious flaws" is just POV language. It's like puffery, but the other way around. Professor Penguino (talk) 23:57, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * It's not necessarily incorrect. It's out of place to put POV wording in the article. Fine, you can list all the stuff he was objectively wrong about. But the tone of the article is unencyclopedic. Professor Penguino (talk) 01:05, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Erroneously
So, I'm a little confused. If someone comes to this article for the first time and they read this:

"Paul Ralph Ehrlich (born May 29, 1932) is an American biologist known for his predictions and warnings about the consequences of population growth, including famine and resource depletion. Ehrlich is the Bing Professor Emeritus of Population Studies of the Department of Biology of Stanford University, and President of Stanford's Center for Conservation Biology.

Ehrlich became well known for the controversial 1968 book The Population Bomb, which he co-authored with his wife Anne H. Ehrlich, in which they famously stated that "[i]n the 1970s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now.""

Don't you think that it might be... just a little bit of interest to the reader... to know whether or not this predictions were true or not? Did hundreds of millions of people starve to death in the 1970s? Don't you think that just might be relevant? Red  Slash  20:47, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * You need to take a break from this article. Take this article off your watchlist, stop repeating the same thing over and over on the talk page, and go do something else for a while. Viriditas (talk) 20:48, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

List of users opposing edits by Red Slash
This list excludes logged-out IPs. The list of user names is extracted only from the above talk page discussion on this page and may not represent additional opposes in the article history based on reverts or opposing edits.

 * Oppose

Total: Nine opposes.

Ehrlich's role in forced sterilization of millions?
This article and the already-cited book by Dowbiggin (2008) provide credible allegations of Ehrlich's role in encouraging the forced sterilization of hundreds of thousands of people in the United States, and of millions of people in India. Yet this (surely noteworthy) topic does not yet appear in Ehrlich's article. The article already quotes Ehrlich as publishing that "We must have population control at home ... by compulsion if voluntary methods fail. We must use our political power to push other countries into ... population control." But it does not cover the results in the world of his push for compulsory sterilization. Gnuish (talk) 20:59, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think Astral Codex Ten is a reliable source for our use on Wikipedia, but Ian Dowbiggin appears reliable. You might want to take your defense of Astral Codex Ten to the reliable sources noticeboard if you so desire. Your question in the heading, "Ehrlich's role in forced sterilization of millions?" appears highly sensationlistic and polemical. Looking at Dowbiggin (2008) with the book in front of me, I see the following:
 * Ehrlich is described as one of the "luminaries of the birth control movement" (p. 3)
 * Ehrlich once belonged to the group EngenderHealth (p. 4)
 * Hugh Moore, "inventor of the Dixie Cup and the most outspoken American advocate of population control...coined the term 'the population bomb" before it was popularized in 1968 by biologist Paul Ehrlich" (p. 10).
 * "Long before media-savvy demographers such as Paul and Anne Ehrlich began warning, in the 1960s, that overpopulation would lead to mass starvation, [William] Vogt was predicting environmental, political, and social disasters if human breeding was not dramatically curtailed." (p. 111)
 * "By the late 1960s, HBAA had become such a group, closely identified with activist figures such as Paul Ehrlich (see insert), author of The Population Bomb (1968), and the antinatalist organization Zero Population Growth." (p. 114)
 * "In 1954, long before Paul Ehrlich made the 'population bomb' a household phrase with the title of his 1968 bestseller, [Hugh] Moore coined the term in one of his booklets warning about the dangers of overpopulation." (p. 115)
 * "In the evening of October 1, 1969, Hugh Moore, president of the Association for Voluntary Sterilization (AVS), was in a buoyant mood. As he approached the microphone at New York City’s Carnegie Endowment Center, he gazed at the overflow audience, which included television host Ed Sullivan; entertainer Arthur Godfrey; feminist author Betty Friedan; and Stanford University biologist Paul Ehrlich, author of the 1968 bestseller The Population Bomb." (p. 135)
 * "Caroline Rulon 'Lonny' Myers was another example of an activist whose sterilization advocacy combined issues of population, environmentalism, sexual freedom, women’s liberation, and reproductive rights...In 1969, she heard Paul Ehrlich speak, and 'the urgency hit me': she realized her interests in sex education, birth control, and women’s emancipation dovetailed with population concerns." (p. 152)
 * "Fears about population growth were fanned by such books as Make Room! Make Room! (1967) and Logan’s Run (1967), which described grim, futuristic scenarios of severe overcrowding and increasingly scarce resources. The same theme appeared in Paul Ehrlich’s The Population Bomb, published in 1968 by the Sierra Club through Ballantine Books. Within two years the book went through thirteen editions. Ehrlich, whose research Hugh Moore helped to fund, borrowed the book title from Moore's pamphlet published a decade and a half earlier. Ehrlich argued that the world faced mass starvation in the next ten years if governments did not commit themselves to zero population growth. Rejecting what he called 'sugarcoated solutions,' Ehrlich proposed legislation in the form of taxes on families with more than two children, as well as financial incentives for individuals to undergo sterilization. If that struck readers as 'coercion,' he wrote, it was 'coercion in a good cause.' Ehrlich practiced what he preached: in 1963 he underwent a vasectomy after the birth of his only child." (pp. 153-154)
 * "Nixon's comments and the publication of The Population Bomb set the stage for Hugh Moore’s 1969 AVS-sponsored conference on conservation and voluntary sterilization. Attendees included Donald J. Zinn of the National Wildlife Federation; Roland C. Clement, vice-president of the National Audubon Society; and Richard H. Goodwin, president of the Conservation and Research Foundation. Ehrlich told the conference that "the first thing that anyone who wishes to consider himself a conservationist should do is stop having children.'" (p. 154)

 * To summarize, I see nothing about Ehrlich and forced sterilization in Dowbiggin's book anywhere, but an enormous amount of material regarding voluntary sterilization. How do you explain this discrepancy between what you've claimed and what the evidence shows? Viriditas (talk) 21:42, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Re-editing this page
I came across this page and have wanted to adopt it because I think it's in a terrible state. There is a lot of disjointed editorialising, which apart from not being encyclopedic, makes it hard to read. So I've started trying to rehabilitate bits of it, but wanted to leave a note here in case anyone is concerned or just wants to know the general gist of where my edits are going.

Firstly, I'm not here to get rid of criticisms of Paul Ehrlich. Not only does he richly deserve some criticism, but much of that criticism appears copiously in published reliable sources. However, not every iteration of every failed prediction needs to be reported and refuted here. Moreover, 90% of the time it's the same prediction - the rising population will kill us all, very soon, mainly through famine. So this page could and should be considerably shorter.

Secondly, criticisms (and support, which unfortunately also exists in copious quantities) need to be attributed. Wikipedia's voice doesn't need to point out that a prediction was failed, even when it's an obvious truth (we didn't all die of famine in the 1970s).

Thirdly, my proposal is largely to get rid of the "After 2000s" section and to narrowly tailor the writings section to talk about the reception of the books (and not so much of the ideas in the books), while merging all the support and criticism of his views and predictions into the "Reception" section which I think should be re-named - maybe to "Views & Activism".

Of course anyone else is free to edit at any time in any way they like, but I put this here in the hope that if anyone has alternative directions or suggestions, we can do this collaboratively. Samuelshraga (talk) 13:04, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Paul R. Ehrlich


text:
Sodium fluoride

Sodium fluoride (NaF) is an inorganic compound with the formula NaF. It is a colorless or white solid that is readily soluble in water. It is used in trace amounts in the fluoridation of drinking water to prevent tooth decay, and in toothpastes and topical pharmaceuticals for the same purpose. In 2021, it was the 291st most commonly prescribed medication in the United States, with more than 600,000 prescriptions. It is also used in metallurgy and in medical imaging.

Dental caries
Fluoride salts are often added to municipal drinking water (as well as to certain food products in some countries) for the purpose of maintaining dental health. The fluoride enhances the strength of teeth by the formation of fluorapatite, a naturally occurring component of tooth enamel. Although sodium fluoride is used to fluoridate water and is the standard by which other water-fluoridation compounds are gauged, hexafluorosilicic acid (H2SiF6) and its salt sodium hexafluorosilicate (Na2SiF6) are more commonly used additives in the United States.

Osteoporosis
Fluoride supplementation has been extensively studied for the treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis. This supplementation does not appear to be effective; even though sodium fluoride increases bone density, it does not decrease the risk of fractures.

Medical imaging
In medical imaging, fluorine-18-labelled sodium fluoride (USP, sodium fluoride Na18F) is one of the oldest tracers used in positron emission tomography (PET), having been in use since the 1960s. Relative to conventional bone scintigraphy carried out with gamma cameras or SPECT systems, PET offers more sensitivity and spatial resolution. Fluorine-18 has a half-life of 110 min, which requires it to be used promptly once produced; this logistical limitation hampered its adoption in the face of the more convenient technetium-99m-labelled radiopharmaceuticals. However, fluorine-18 is generally considered to be a superior radiopharmaceutical for skeletal imaging. In particular it has a high and rapid bone uptake accompanied by very rapid blood clearance, which results in a high bone-to-background ratio in a short time. Additionally the annihilation photons produced by decay of 18F have a high energy of 511 keV compared to the 140 keV photons of 99mTc.

Chemistry
Sodium fluoride has a variety of specialty chemical applications in synthesis and extractive metallurgy. It reacts with electrophilic chlorides including acyl chlorides, sulfur chlorides, and phosphorus chloride. Like other fluorides, sodium fluoride finds use in desilylation in organic synthesis. Sodium fluoride can be used to produce fluorocarbons via the Finkelstein reaction; this process has the advantage of being simple to perform on a small scale but is rarely used on an industrial scale due to the existence of more effective techniques (e.g. Electrofluorination, Fowler process).

Biology
Sodium fluoride is sometimes added at relatively high concentrations (~20 mM) to protein lysis buffers in order to inhibit endogenous phosphatases and thereby protect phosphorylated protein sites. Sodium pyrophosphate and Sodium orthovanadate are also used for this purpose.

Insecticide
Inorganic fluorides such as fluorosilicates and sodium fluoride complex magnesium ions as magnesium fluorophosphate. They inhibit enzymes such as enolase that require Mg2+ as a prosthetic group. Thus, fluoride poisoning prevents phosphate transfer in oxidative metabolism. Sodium fluoride, patented as an insecticide in 1896, was commonly used through the 1970s on ants and other domestic pests, and as a stomach poison for plant-feeding insects.

Its use, along with that of sodium fluorosilicate, declined over the 20th century as the products were banned or restricted due to the possibility of poisoning, intentional or accidental. In 1942, for instance, 47 inmates at the Oregon State Hospital died after consuming scrambled eggs which had been inadvertently prepared with sodium fluoride; while assisting the cooks, another inmate had confused a container of insecticide—used by the hospital to control cockroaches—with powdered milk, which was stored nearby.

Other uses
Sodium fluoride is used as a cleaning agent (e.g., as a "laundry sour").

Sodium fluoride can be used in a nuclear molten salt reactor.

Safety
The lethal dose for a 70 kg (154 lb) human is estimated at 5–10 g.

Fluorides, particularly aqueous solutions of sodium fluoride, are rapidly and quite extensively absorbed by the human body.

Fluorides interfere with electron transport and calcium metabolism. Calcium is essential for maintaining cardiac membrane potentials and in regulating coagulation. High ingestion of fluoride salts or hydrofluoric acid may result in fatal arrhythmias due to profound hypocalcemia. Chronic over-absorption can cause hardening of bones, calcification of ligaments, and buildup on teeth. Fluoride can cause irritation or corrosion to eyes, skin, and nasal membranes.

Sodium fluoride is classed as toxic by both inhalation (of dusts or aerosols) and ingestion. In high enough doses, it has been shown to affect the heart and circulatory system. For occupational exposures, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration and the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health have established occupational exposure limits at 2.5 mg/m3 over an eight-hour time-weighted average.

In the higher doses used to treat osteoporosis, plain sodium fluoride can cause pain in the legs and incomplete stress fractures when the doses are too high; it also irritates the stomach, sometimes so severely as to cause peptic ulcer disease. Slow-release and enteric-coated versions of sodium fluoride do not have significant gastric side effects, and have milder and less frequent complications in the bones. In the lower doses used for water fluoridation, the only clear adverse effect is dental fluorosis, which can alter the appearance of children's teeth during tooth development; this is mostly mild and is unlikely to represent any real effect on aesthetic appearance or on public health. A chronic fluoride ingestion of 1 ppm of fluoride in drinking water can cause mottling of the teeth (fluorosis) and an exposure of 1.7 ppm will produce mottling in 30%–50% of patients.

Chemical structure
Sodium fluoride is an inorganic ionic compound, dissolving in water to give separated Na+ and F− ions. Like sodium chloride, it crystallizes in a cubic motif where both Na+ and F− occupy octahedral coordination sites; its lattice spacing, approximately 462 pm, is smaller than that of sodium chloride (564 pm).

Occurrence
The mineral form of NaF, villiaumite, is moderately rare. It is known from plutonic nepheline syenite rocks.

Production
NaF is prepared by neutralizing hydrofluoric acid or hexafluorosilicic acid (H2SiF6), both byproducts of the reaction of fluorapatite (Ca5(PO4)3F) from phosphate rock during the production of superphosphate fertilizer. Neutralizing agents include sodium hydroxide and sodium carbonate. Alcohols are sometimes used to precipitate the NaF:
 * HF +  NaOH  →   NaF  +  H2O

From solutions containing HF, sodium fluoride precipitates as the bifluoride salt sodium bifluoride (NaHF2). Heating the latter releases HF and gives NaF.
 * HF +  NaF  ⇌   NaHF2

In a 1986 report, the annual worldwide consumption of NaF was estimated to be several million tonnes.

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

title: Sodium fluoride


text:
Talk:Brand (disambiguation)

Branding is also a body modification technique, similar to tattoos. not just for livestock.

title: Talk:Brand (disambiguation)


text:
Abdul Sattar Edhi

Abdul Sattar Edhi NI LPP ( 28 February 1928 – 8 July 2016) was a Pakistani humanitarian, philanthropist and ascetic who founded the Edhi Foundation, which runs the world's largest ambulance network, along with homeless shelters, animal shelters, rehabilitation centres, and orphanages across Pakistan.

Edhi's charitable activities expanded greatly in 1957 when an Asian flu epidemic originating in China swept through Pakistan and the rest of the world. Donations allowed him to buy his first ambulance the same year. He later expanded his charity network with the help of his wife Bilquis Edhi. Following his death, his son Faisal Edhi took over as head of the Edhi Foundation.

Over his lifetime, the Edhi Foundation expanded, backed entirely by private donations from Pakistani citizens across class, which included establishing a network of 1,800 ambulances. By the time of his death, Edhi was registered as a parent or guardian of nearly 20,000 adopted children. He is known amongst Pakistanis as the "Angel of Mercy" and is considered to be Pakistan's most respected and legendary figure. In 2013, The Huffington Post claimed that he might be "the world's greatest living humanitarian".

Edhi maintained a hands-off management style and was often critical of the corruption commonly found within the religious organizations, clergy and politicians. He was a strong proponent of religious tolerance in Pakistan and extended his support to the victims of Hurricane Katrina and the 1985 famine in Ethiopia. He was nominated several times for the Nobel Peace Prize. Edhi received several awards including the Ahmadiyya Muslim Peace Prize and the UNESCO-Madanjeet Singh Prize.

He died in July 2016 and was buried with full state honours.

Early life
Edhi was a Gujarati Muhajir born into a Memon Muslim family in Bantva, Gujarat, India. He publicly expressed that he was not a "very religious person", and that he was "neither for religion or against it". On his faith, he stated that he was a "humanitarian", telling others that "empty words and long phrases do not impress God" and to "show Him your faith" through action. His mother had brought him up teaching love and care for humans.

The Edhi Foundation and Bilquis Edhi Trust
Edhi dedicated his life to aiding the poor. Over the course of sixty years, he single-handedly changed the face of welfare in Pakistan. He founded the Edhi Foundation. Edhi was known for his ascetic lifestyle, owning only two pairs of clothes, never taking salary from his organization, and living in one room with kitchenette at the Foundation's headquarters in the heart of Karachi. Additionally, his previously established welfare trust, named the Edhi Trust, was restarted with an initial sum of Rs.5000. The trust was later renamed after his wife as the Bilquis Edhi Trust. Widely regarded and respected as a guardian and savior for the poor, Edhi began receiving numerous donations which allowed him to expand his services. As of 2016, the Edhi Foundation continues to grow in both size and service and currently remains the largest welfare organization in Pakistan. Since its inception, the Edhi Foundation has rescued over 20,000 abandoned infants, rehabilitated over 50,000 orphans, and has trained over 40,000 nurses. It also runs more than 330 welfare centres throughout rural and urban Pakistan that operate as food kitchens, rehabilitation homes, shelters for abandoned women and children, and clinics for the mentally and physically challenged.

The Edhi Foundation is funded entirely by private donations and full services are offered to people irrespective of ethnicity, religion or status. It runs the world's largest volunteer ambulance service (operating over 1,500 of them) and offers 24-hour emergency services. It also operates free nursing homes, orphanages, clinics, women's shelters, and rehabilitation centres for drug addicts and the mentally ill. Outside of its main base of operations in Pakistan, the Edhi Foundation has run relief operations in South Asia, the Middle East, Africa, the Caucasus region, Eastern Europe, and the United States. In 2005, the foundation donated US$100,000 to relief efforts after Hurricane Katrina. As of 2020, the Foundation has international head offices present in the United States, United Kingdom, United Arab Emirates, Canada, Australia, Nepal, Bangladesh, India and Japan.

In 2004, Edhi and his organization ran into trouble with the Pakistani Militants. In 2014, the foundation was targeted and robbed of approximately US$500,000 and has been the victim of right-wing attacks and competition from Pakistan's militant far-right

Travel issues
In the early 1980s, Edhi was arrested by Israeli troops while he was entering Lebanon. In 2006, he was detained by authorities in Toronto, Canada, for over sixteen hours. In January 2008, U.S. immigration officials at the John F. Kennedy International Airport in New York City investigated him for over eight hours after seizing his passport and other documents. When asked by media officials about the frequent detentions, Edhi said: "The only explanation I can think of is my beard and my dress." His appearance in traditional Pakistani clothing and a long beard made him appear visibly Muslim and therefore, in a post-9/11 climate, prompted U.S. and Canadian travel authorities to keep him for additional questioning.

Life in Karachi
In 1965, Edhi married Bilquis, a nurse who worked at an Edhi Trust dispensary. They had four children, two daughters, and two sons.

Bilquis became responsible for running the free maternity home at the foundation's headquarters in Mithandar, Karachi, where she raised her children on the top floor, and on the lower floors, ran the local delivery room, and organised the adoption of abandoned babies. These were babies who were dropped into a cradle placed outside every Edhi centre across the country or found dumped in trash piles in the streets. Often such babies were otherwise at risk of being killed because of being born out of wedlock or due to rape. On 25 June 2013, Edhi was hospitalised at SIUT due to failing kidneys. He would reportedly be on dialysis for the rest of his life unless he found a kidney donor.

The daily operations of the organisation during his ill health and after his passing were managed by his son Faisal Edhi (under the mentorship of Anwar Kazmi, 'the Maulana's Lieutenant', as his friend Eqbal Ahmad called him), wife Bilquis Edhi (1947-2022), and daughter Kubra (who runs the Edhi centre for women and children at Clifton).

Organ Donation
Edhi died on 8 July 2016 at the age of 88 due to kidney failure after having been placed on a ventilator. One of his last wishes was that his organs be donated for the use of the needy but due to his poor health, only his corneas were suitable for later use in the donation. Edhi was an organ donor and after his death, in accordance with his wishes, his corneas were donated to two blind people.

State funeral
Prime Minister Sharif declared national mourning on the day following Edhi's death and announced a state funeral for him. He became the third person in Pakistan's history to receive a state gun carriage funeral after Muhammad Ali Jinnah and Zia-ul-Haq. He was the only Pakistani without a state authority or a state role to receive a state funeral. According to the Inter-Services Public Relations (ISPR), state honors were given to Edhi by a guard of honor and a 19-gun salute. Following the funeral he was laid to rest at Edhi Village on the outskirts of Karachi.

Condolences
The attendees at his Janazah (Islamic funeral prayer) included dignitaries such as Mamnoon Hussain (President of Pakistan), Raza Rabbani (Chairman of the Senate of Pakistan), Ishratul Ibad (Governor of Sindh), Syed Qaim Ali Shah and Shehbaz Sharif (the Chief Ministers of Sindh and Punjab, respectively), Raheel Sharif (Chief of Army Staff) along with Muhammad Zakaullah and Sohail Aman (the Chiefs of Staff of the Pakistani Navy and Air Force), at the National Stadium, Karachi. Prominent Pakistani figures such as Maulana Tariq Jamil and Pakistani−Canadian Sheikh Faraz Rabbani often expressed their strong support for Edhi and his work.

Reactions to his death came from several high-ranking Pakistani officials, with then-Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif saying in an official statement: "We have lost a great servant of humanity. He was the real manifestation of love for those who were socially vulnerable, impoverished, helpless, and poor." Chief of Army Staff Raheel Sharif called him a "true humanitarian". He was called Pakistan's equivalent of Mother Teresa by India Today in 1990, and the BBC wrote that he was considered "Pakistan's most respected figure and was seen by some as a saint."

International awards

 * Ramon Magsaysay Award for Public Service (1986)
 * Lenin Peace Prize (1988)
 * Paul Harris Fellow from Rotary International (1993)
 * Peace Prize from the former USSR, for services during the Armenian earthquake disaster (1988)
 * Hamdan Award for volunteers in Humanitarian Medical Services (2000), UAE
 * International Balzan Prize (2000) for Humanity, Peace and Brotherhood, Italy
 * Peace and Harmony Award (2001), Delhi
 * Peace Award (2004), Mumbai
 * Peace Award (2005), Hyderabad, India
 * Seoul Peace Prize (2008), Seoul
 * Honorary doctorate from the Institute of Business Administration, Karachi (2006).
 * UNESCO-Madanjeet Singh Prize (2009)
 * POSCO TJ Park Prize (2009)
 * Ahmadiyya Muslim Peace Prize (2010)
 * Honorary Doctorate by the University of Bedfordshire (2010)
 * London Peace Award (2011), London

National awards

 * Silver Jubilee Shield by College of Physicians and Surgeons (1962–1987)
 * Moiz ur Rehman Award (2015)
 * The Social Worker of Sub-Continent by Government of Sindh (1989)
 * Nishan-e-Imtiaz, civil decoration from the Government of Pakistan (1989)
 * Recognition of meritorious services to oppressed humanity during the 1980s by Ministry of Health and Social Welfare, Government of Pakistan (1989)
 * Pakistan Civic Award from the Pakistan Civic Society (1992)
 * Jinnah Award for Outstanding Services to Pakistan was conferred in April 1998 by The Jinnah Society. This was the first Jinnah Award conferred on any person in Pakistan.
 * Shield of Honor by Pakistan Army (E & C)
 * Khidmat Award by the Pakistan Academy of Medical Sciences
 * Bacha Khan Aman (Peace) Award in 1991
 * Human Rights Award by Pakistan Human Rights Society
 * 2013 Person of the Year by the readers of The Express Tribune

Honours
On 8 July 2021, a statue of Edhi was installed at Hockey Chowk, Quetta.

On 31 March 2017, a cupronickel commemorative coin was issued upon the recommendation of the State Bank of Pakistan to Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, who decided to commemorate Edhi's services on the national level. Edhi became the only social worker and the fifth Pakistani personality to have been honoured with a commemorative coin.

On 28 February 2017, Google celebrated Edhi with a Google Doodle hailing his "super-efficient" ambulance service.

In July 2016, the Defence Housing Authority renamed the 5 kilometre-long Beach Avenue in Clifton Beach, Karachi as 'Abdul Sattar Edhi Avenue'.

On 8 July 2016 Pakistan Post issued a commemorative postage stamp in memory of Edhi.

Nobel Peace Prize petitions
In 2011, then-Prime Minister of Pakistan Yousaf Raza Gilani recommended Edhi for a nomination for the Nobel Peace Prize.

In early 2016, a petition signed by 30,000 for a Nobel Peace Prize for Edhi was moved by Ziauddin Yousafzai, the father of Malala Yousafzai. In her condolence message on Edhi's death, broadcast by BBC Urdu, Malala said that "as a Nobel Peace Prize winner, I hold the right to nominate people for the prize and I have nominated Abdul Sattar Edhi" adding that "even the coveted Nobel Prize cannot be a befitting tribute to Edhi's services for humanity".

Primary
Abdul Sattar Edhi (1995), Breaking the Silence. Islamabad: National Bureau of Publications.

Tehmina Durrani (1996) Abdul Sattar Edhi, An Autobiography: A Mirror to the Blind. Karachi: A. Sattar Edhi Foundation.

Popular
Steve Inskeep (October 2011), Instant City: Life and Death in Karachi. New York: Penguin Books.

Richard Covington; Shahidul Alam (2008), "What One Person Can Do: The Amazing Life of Abdul Sattar Edhi". In: What Matters: The World's Preeminent Photojournalists and Thinkers Depict Essential Issues of Our Time edited by David Elliot Cohen.

Richard Covington; Shahidul Alam (2004) Humanitarian to a Nation: Abdul Sattar Edhi AramcoWorld.

Children
Amina Azfar (2014), Abdul Sattar Edhi. Graphic Stories series (in Urdu and English). Karachi: Oxford University Press.

Film
Omar Mullick; Bassam Tariq (2013),These Birds Walk. Amélie Saillez (2011), The Kingdom of Mister Edhi (Lastor Media). Peter Oborne (2011), Pakistan: Defenders of Karachi (Channel 4, April 2011, directed by Edward Watts, Quicksilver Media).

Karachi-based philanthropists

 * Bilquis Edhi
 * Adeebul Hasan Rizvi
 * Hakeem Muhammad Saeed
 * Ramzan Chhipa
 * Saylani Welfare Trust
 * Ansar Burney
 * Ruth Pfau

Related histories

 * Daniel Pearl
 * Neerja Bhanot

title: Abdul Sattar Edhi


text:
Topper (film)

Topper is a 1937 American supernatural comedy film directed by Norman Z. McLeod, starring Constance Bennett and Cary Grant and featuring Roland Young. It tells the story of a stuffy, stuck-in-his-ways man who is haunted by the ghosts of a fun-loving married couple.

The film was adapted by Eric Hatch, Jack Jevne and Eddie Moran from the 1926 novel by Thorne Smith. It was produced by Hal Roach and distributed by Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer. The supporting cast includes Billie Burke and Eugene Pallette. Topper was a huge hit with film audiences in the summer of 1937.

Topper was the first black-and-white film to be digitally colorized, re-released in 1985 by Hal Roach Studios.

Plot
George and Marion Kerby are as irresponsible as they are rich. When George wrecks their classy sports car, they wake up from the accident as ghosts. Realizing they are not in heaven or hell because they have never been responsible enough to do good deeds or bad ones, they decide that freeing their old friend Cosmo Topper from his regimented lifestyle will be their ticket into heaven.

Topper, a wealthy bank president, is trapped in a boring job. Worse still, Clara, his social-climbing wife, seems to care only about nagging him and presenting a respectable façade. On a whim, after George and Marion die, Topper buys George's flashy sports car. Soon he meets the ghosts of his dead friends, and immediately they begin to liven up his dull life with drinking and dancing, flirting and fun.

The escapades lead quickly to Cosmo's arrest, and the ensuing scandal alienates his wife Clara. However, because of Topper's scandal, some of the people Clara would like to socialize with now become interested in her and Topper. Cosmo moves out into a hotel with Marion who claims she is no longer married since she is dead. Clara fears she has lost Cosmo forever. The Toppers' loyal butler suggests that she lighten up a bit; she decides he's right and dons the lingerie and other attire of "a forward woman". After Cosmo has a near-death experience and nearly joins George and Marion in the afterlife, Cosmo and Clara are happily reunited, and George and Marion, their good deed done, gladly depart for heaven.

Cast
Cast notes
 * Early on in the film, songwriter and pianist Hoagy Carmichael makes an uncredited cameo appearance—his debut acting role—as the piano player in the sequence where George and Marion are on the town the night before the meeting at the bank. He introduces the song "Old Man Moon," which is sung by Grant and Bennett. It's also sung later by Three Hits and a Miss. As the couple leave the bar, George (Grant) says, "(Good)night Hoagy!" and Carmichael replies, "So long, see ya next time".
 * Lana Turner makes her second film appearance, uncredited, as a nightclub patron.

Production
After a long career producing comedy shorts, producer Hal Roach was looking to expand into long-form films to complement his Laurel and Hardy features, and found a property in Topper, a risqué 1926 novel by Thorne Smith. Roach immediately wanted Cary Grant to play George Kerby, but he had difficulty getting the actor to agree to play the part, since Grant was concerned that the supernatural aspects of the story would not work. Roach sold the film to Grant as a screwball comedy—with fee of $50,000.

For Grant's opposite number, Roach was interested in Jean Harlow, and as Topper W. C. Fields, but Harlow was on the brink of death, and Fields turned down the offer. When Roach reached out to Constance Bennett, she was impressed enough with the property that she agreed to be paid less than her usual $40,000 fee.

Topper was shot at Hal Roach Studios in Culver City, and location shooting took place at the entrance to the Bullock's department store on Wilshire Boulevard - as the entrance to the "Seabreeze Hotel" - and at a location on San Rafael Avenue in Pasadena, California.

The automobile used by George and Marion Kerby, before they become ghosts, and later by Cosmo Topper - whose own car is a 1936 Lincoln Model K - is a custom-made vehicle with a resemblance to Cord and Duesenberg automobiles of the 1930s. Production models of a Cord were too small to use, so the custom body was built on the chassis of a 1936 Buick Roadmaster by Bohman & Schwartz and the external exhaust pipes characteristic of a supercharged Cord are non-functional; the Buick Roadmaster of the time used an eight-in-line ("straight eight") engine whereas the Cord used a V-8 engine - so external exhaust pipes on both sides of the hood (as per the Cord arrangement) would have meant that at least one side of the car (and probably both) used dummy external pipes. The Buick trunk had special compartments for camera equipment. Afterwards, the car was purchased by the Gilmore Oil Co., who used it for many years for promotional purposes. In 1954, the vehicle was updated utilizing a Chrysler Imperial chassis and drive train.

Reception
Topper was a box-office hit, and gave a boost to the careers of all the lead actors, in particular Cary Grant, who moved from this film into a sequence of classic screwball comedies such as The Awful Truth (1937), Bringing Up Baby (1938), and Holiday (1938). Constance Bennett, previously known as more of a "clothes-horse" than an actress, received very good notices, and Roach reunited her with director McLeod and screenwriters Jevne and Moran, as well as Billie Burke and Alan Mowbray, in Merrily We Live (1938).

Awards and honors
Topper was nominated for Academy Awards for Best Actor in a Supporting Role for Roland Young - his only nomination - and Best Sound, Recording for Elmer Raguse.

The film is recognized by American Film Institute in these lists:
 * 2000: AFI's 100 Years... 100 Laughs - #60
 * 2008: AFI's 10 Top 10:
 * Nominated Fantasy Film

Sequels and adaptations
Topper was followed by the sequels Topper Takes a Trip (1938) and Topper Returns (1941).

A television series premiered in 1953 and ran for two seasons (78 episodes). It starred Leo G. Carroll as Topper and Robert Sterling and Anne Jeffreys as the ghosts, who died in an avalanche while skiing. They are accompanied by the ghost of Neil, a St. Bernard dog who died trying to rescue them.

A television pilot for a proposed new series, Topper Returns, was produced in 1973. It stars Roddy McDowall as the nephew of Cosmo Topper (now deceased) and Stefanie Powers and John Fink as the Kerbys, who have transferred their attention to a younger generation. A TV movie remake (and pilot for a new TV series), Topper (1979) was also produced starring Kate Jackson, Jack Warden and Andrew Stevens. According to the article on Nearly Departed, a short-lived American TV series of the 1980s starring Eric Idle of Monty Python fame, it was based on the same premise. John Landis directed another Topper pilot for CBS in 1992, starring Tim Curry as Cosmo Topper, Courteney Cox as Marion Kerby, and Ben Cross as George Kirby, which was not picked up. In 1999, Hugh Wilson was in talks with producer John Davis to direct a remake of Topper but the film was never produced.

Colorization
Topper was the first black-and-white film to be digitally colorized, re-released in 1985 by Hal Roach Studios, with color by Colorization, Inc. The film was chosen because its original 1937 release represented Hal Roach's entry into major feature film production. According to the studio: "In light of this history, it seems fitting that Topper should again be on the cutting edge of change, this time heralding the age of colorization as the first completed color version of a classic black and white motion picture".

title: Topper (film)


text:
Bilquis Edhi

Bilquis Bano Edhi (14 August 1947 – 15 April 2022) was a Pakistani nurse who helped save the lives of over 16,000 children. During her career as a nurse and marriage to Abdul Sattar Edhi, she was one of the most active philanthropists in Pakistan. She was the co-chair of the Edhi Foundation, a charity organization that provided many services in Pakistan including a hospital and emergency service in Karachi. For her contributions, she was awarded the 1986 Ramon Magsaysay Award for Public Service and the Mother Teresa Memorial International Award for Social Justice in 2015. She was also a recipient of Hilal-i-Imtiaz, Pakistan's second highest civilian honour. For her service to the country, she was also referred to as The Mother of Pakistan.

Biography
Bilquis was born in 1947 in Bantva, India in present-day state of Gujarat. As a teenager, she was noted to have not enjoyed school and instead joined a small and expanding dispensary as a nurse in 1965. At the time, the Edhi home was in the old city area of Karachi known as Mithadar where it had been founded in 1951. The small number of nurses, predominantly Christian and Hindu, who worked there had just reduced in number. The dispensary's founder, Abdul Sattar Edhi, recruited a number of nurses, including Bilquis who, unusually, was from a Muslim background. Bilquis Edhi went on to marry Abdul. The two remained married until his death on 8 July 2016.

Her husband recognizing her talents, had her lead the small nursing department. He had recognized her enthusiasm and interest during her six-month training program where she had learned basic midwifery and healthcare. They were married when she was nineteen and her husband was nineteen years older. Their honeymoon was unusual in that the newlyweds discovered a young girl with head injuries at their dispensary just after their wedding ceremony. Edhi said in 1989 that she did not regret the time lost in consoling the twelve-year-old's concerned relatives or supervising blood transfusions as now "... that girl is married with children; that's what is really important." The Edhi Foundation's unofficial website uses the line "Making a difference and changing lives forever."

Bilquis took over the management of the jhoolas project, the first of which had been built by her husband in 1952. She established over 300 cradles throughout Pakistan where parents can surrender unwanted infants. The cradles carry the message “Do not kill, leave the baby to live in the cradle” in English and Urdu. Over 90% of the surrendered infants are female and a portion of them are disabled. This alternative is thought to have reduced the number of infanticide cases by parents. The Edhi Foundation is also responsible for burying dead babies found by the police. Along with her husband, Bilquis was the co-chair of the Edhi Foundation. The foundation also runs a hospital and emergency service in Karachi.

Recognition
Bilquis and her husband had received a number of awards in recognition of their work. In July 2007, they were publicly recognized for their work by President Pervez Musharraf who made a personal contribution of 100,000 rupees to the Edhi Foundation. President Musharraf also noted that their work provided social services to the poor of Pakistan without any discrimination. This contribution contrasts sharply with another offered by President Zia ul-Haq which was turned down because of his perceived political motivations. Despite their relative fame, the couple lived modestly in a two-room apartment which is part of one of their orphanages.

In 2022, Bilquis Edhi was named among The Muslim 500, a worldwide list of most influential Muslims. She was also a recipient of the Hilal-i-Imtiaz, Pakistan's second highest civilian honour.

Death
She died on 15 April 2022 in Aga Khan Hospital, Karachi, due to congestive heart failure after a prolonged illness. Her funeral prayers were offered at New Memon Masjid after which she was buried in Mewa Shah Graveyard, Karachi, on 16 April 2022. The Government of Sindh issued an official obituary for her on her death and announced a day of mourning on 16 April 2022.

title: Bilquis Edhi


text:
SS-Bewerber

SS-Bewerber or Staffel-Bewerber ("SS-Applicant") was an SS rank used in Nazi Germany from 1934 to 1945. The rank of SS-Bewerber was the lowest possible SS rank and was assigned to those personnel who were candidates in the SS. The rank was used in the Allgemeine-SS as a prelude to appointment as an SS-Anwärter (recruit).

Within the Allgemeine-SS, the rank of SS-Bewerber was (more often than not) used simply as an administrative title while a background investigation was being conducted on a potential SS member. Typically this would involve a criminal history check, political reliability screening, and investigation into the prospective SS member's racial background.

title: SS-Bewerber


text:
Talk:Willow

Archaic extraction method
Could this article benefit from me explaining how to extract and consume salicin? It will be difficult to find references for everything, although I do have access to a research library and probably could. Basically I would include a simple technique to extract the inner root bark with a knife or some such tool, how to heat it with water for consumption and what a recommended human dose would be. Orun Kabir (talk) 13:37, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, but no, I don't think we could do that, interesting though that would be. I don't think Wikipedia gets into that kind of thing.

IceDragon64 (talk) 21:41, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

 * Going to agree with IceDragon64 on this one, I think you're looking to post that on one of those "how to" sites. Encylopedia differs from a instruction guide/user manual. Maybe a brief summary at best, just enough to inform a reader. PrecociousPeach (talk) 18:59, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Improper caption
One picture caption reads "Woodbine caused by Honeysuckle on a Willow." Woodbine is honeysuckle, or vice versa - not something caused by it. I'm not sure if there's a word for the twisted shape of the willow, but it's not "woodbine". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.150.211.223 (talk) 23:20, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

 * That caption confused me, too. I've fixed it. Dwbruhn (talk) 20:20, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I suspect that the willow in question is probably a Contorted Willow which naturally has a twisting nature. 82.34.123.171 (talk) 10:14, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Willow. 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.uniprot.org/taxonomy/40685
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170525105020/http://www.forest.go.kr/kna/special/download/English_Names_for_Korean_Native_Plants.pdf to http://www.forest.go.kr/kna/special/download/English_Names_for_Korean_Native_Plants.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) 13:58, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Culture Section
The "culture" section lists Harry Potter's Whomping Willow but not Tolkein's Old Man Willow? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8804:6500:6A5:D9F8:1FA6:14A4:AA15 (talk) 05:25, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 7 September 2022

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) – robertsky (talk) 04:24, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

– I do not lightly propose to move a significant natural history topic, but there are many topics by this name, including some that get more traffic. I do not think that "Willow" alone is a term with a primary topic. BD2412 T 03:00, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Willow → Willow tree
 * Willow (disambiguation) → Willow

 * Not all willows (Salix) are trees. Also most if not all the other single use of 'willow' are derived from the plant meaning. I would also be interested in what 'willow' has more substained traffic. A look at the disambiguation page shows multiple locations called 'Willow'; the use as a given name (but most if not all given name articles mark them as given names in the title); minor fictional characters such as Willow (Dreadstar); two movies; a tv series; a media sports channel;  a couple of games; 6 songs (only two of which have their own articles); two cats; a textile machine but that is better known as Willey (textile machine).  The rest are all compounds (e.g., Old Man Willow) or use the plural Willows, California.  If a move is needed it should be to the genus name, Salix. Erp (talk) 04:08, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Per Massviews, Willow (film) has received substantially more views, and Willow Smith (who, per her article, professionally goes by just "Willow" now) gets more than three times the views. Looking at |Willow_(film)|Willow_Smith|Willow_(song)|Willow_Rosenberg|Willow,_Alaska|Willow_(TV_series)|Willow_(Joe_Biden%27s_cat)|Willow_(TV_channel)|Willow_pattern two-year pageviews for the top ten actually matching titles, the tree (or plant), gets less than 9% of views in that group. BD2412  T 04:48, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Two years is hardly sustained though I admit that since 2015 Willow Smith has certainly been more popular (at least among a particular audience, I've never noticed her before).  Willow the film has oscillated and might be having more in the last couple of years due to a tv series based on it coming out soon. Article willow the plant just keeps plodding along and will probably keep plodding along when Willow Smith is a faded memory (Willow Smith certainly is not at the level of pageviews of Elvis Presley but does have more than Madonna who seems to be fading from her heyday). Erp (talk) 05:48, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Natural history topics often have an annual cycle of traffic. For the plant, there is a peak in traffic in April/May, a secondary peak in September/October (most willows have brightly colored fall foliage) and usually a trough in December/January (there's a spike instead of a trough in December 2020, but that is surely due to Willow (song)). Plantdrew (talk) 02:26, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Even taking into account peaks and troughs, going back to the period from 2015 to 2020 (before the recent resurgence of interest in the 1988 film, and the rise in popularity of the singer), the plant |Willow_(film)|Willow_Smith|Willow_(song)|Willow_Rosenberg|Willow,_Alaska|Willow_(TV_series)|Willow_(Joe_Biden%27s_cat)|Willow_(TV_channel)|Willow_pattern has never consistently received more than 17% of page views for matching titles—even while occupying the primary topic title. What do you think happens in November, when the Willow TV series starts? While that might be characterized as an exercise in recentism, the film has not flagged in popularity for over three decades, and the TV series can only solidify the continued notability of the film. Similarly, the song, and even Joe Biden's cat, did not even exist as topics in that period, and now that they are here, they will not cease to exist as topics. BD2412  T 02:57, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * "Willow Tree" seems inconsistent with other articles about plant species and genera. There are lots of uses of the word rose, for example, but the article is not "Rose Flower". I would say stick with the current title. E Wusk (talk) 07:58, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * Oppose. I believe this is the clear primary topic. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:38, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
 * oppose tree is clear primary—blindlynx 17:47, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
 * oppose the plant group is what first comes to mind. Plus not all willows are trees (the smallest willow is all of 1 to 6cm in size) so willow tree doesn't make sense. The only cases I can find off hand where the common name is not use for a plant family or genus or other biological grouping is when the common name is used for species spread over many different groups, e.g., yew and cedar, and not always even then.  In such cases the scientific name cedrus or taxus is used for the groups  --Erp (talk) 06:16, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak support per usage.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 08:12, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Erp. YorkshireExpat (talk) 16:18, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Clear primary. Srnec (talk) 20:19, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The taxon is the clear primary use; also, as noted above, "Willow (tree)" would be wrong as not all willows are trees. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:35, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Willow


text:
Talk:Max Planck Society

Link for MPQ
"Max Planck Institute for Quantum Optics" redirects to a non-existent German version. Maybe the Opticians among us can decide what should be done to it. Robin Patterson 23:40, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Critique
I'm deleting the Critque section after reading the article, the man who claims this is a guy who is suing the Max Planck Institute and he doesn't cite any of his sources for the statistics, next why don't we add that Joe Nobody said that Ford Motors is "gay"?

"considered the foremost research institution in Europe"
of course this should be quoted with a source but i think everyone involved in science will agree with that statment. Research in this case means basic research though. The MPG could even be the foremost research institution in the world, but this is mostly due to its enormous size whilst in other countries the basic research is spread over several institutions. There should be some stats on the MPG site. Slicky 17:21, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

 * About the enormous size: It's annual budget of 1.4bn EUR is actually comparable to that of one, or maybe two to three large US universities...129.69.55.52 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 15:41, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

 * Yes, but most of that money in the US universities is not spent on science, but on the football team, the basketball team, the athletics program, extension programs, all manner of non-science-producing undergraduate programs, etc.

 * Yup, compare with Harvard: it alone spends $3.8bn per year - but it actually only has about 2,000 academic staff and maybe another 2-3,000 PhD students, somewhere between a half or a third of the MPIs. (And maybe half of those academics are in law, business or politics rather than sciences.) -- 192.223.158.46 (talk) 10:30, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

 * Stats found and referenced ;) --Ioverka (talk) 04:52, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

"Cleanup" tag
tag

removed after reworking the article. hope this was fine --Ioverka (talk) 04:52, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies missing
http://www.mpi-fg-koeln.mpg.de/pu/mpifg_dp/dp07-13.pdf would suggest that there is also a Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies. I know nothing further, but I notice it isn't mentioned in this article. - Jmabel | Talk 05:00, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Correct - now it is included. Plehn (talk) 09:42, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

IMPRS
The Graduate Schools "International Max Planck Research Schools" (IMPRS) should be taken out of the article. Today there are over 50 of these schools, but they are "only" a program of cooperation (very sucessful) with the universities. It is not useful to have articles about them, because there is no literature about them. Plehn (talk) 09:42, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that they have to be taken out. It makes sense to move them into a separate page, like it is done in German Wikipedia though. --Pavlo Chemist (talk) 13:47, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Max Planck Institute for European History of Law vs. European Legal History
In the List of Institutes the "MPI für europäische Rechtsgeschichte" is translated to "MPI for European History of Law". On the official Homepage of the Institute it translates to "MPI for European Legal History". I think we should use the official English translation in Wikipedia as well. I shy away from simply changing the Name of the Wikipedia page about the Institute since the page name is also the link-name. Does anybody know if there exist a script to change a page name and all corresponding intern links on Wikipedia? For the time beeing I changed the Name that appear in the List but not the link itself resp. the name of the page it links to. Olaf hamburg (talk) 09:23, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * You are right, changed. Links in other articles will work as the old page is a redirect to the new page, but to change it in articles it is necessary to do manually or for many inclusions asking for replacement using Bot. --Pavlo Chemist (talk) 13:53, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Proposed Max Planck Institutes template
To facilitate navigation among the Max Planck research institutes, such a template would be useful. There are about 80 institute pages and about 10 related pages ie libraries & projects etc. Other institutional examples: ,, at NASA: several such as ,

Russian Academy of Sciences also doesn't exist but might also follow this line...--DadaNeem (talk) 20:41, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Template:Max Planck Society exists, but it is outdated. Maybe later I will try to bring it into shape. --Pavlo Chemist (talk) 13:45, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Ranking
Where can any sources for the statement "In 2006, the Times Higher Education Supplement rankings[2] of non-university research institutions (based on international peer review by academics) placed the Max Planck Society as No.1 in the world for science research, and No.3 in technology research (behind AT&T Corporation and the Argonne National Laboratory in the United States)." be found? The referenced link is dead, and Googling for the ranking brings up only copies of this article on the Max Planck Society. 129.69.215.37 (talk) 07:42, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Image of Eugen Fischer and Max Planck
This image is quite misleading - it is from 1940 - where the Max Planck Society does not exist. Eugen Fischer was a "Scientific Member" of the Kaiser-Wilhelm-Society, but NOT of the Max-Planck-Society (look at the german wikipedia-article about him) - even for the people in around 1950 who reconstructed the Max Planck Society he was unbearable because of his involvement in racial nazi-politics. So this image fits to articles about Fischer, the Kaiser Wilhelm Society or something else, but not to an article about the Max Planck Society. I will look for a better one (for a long time, I think twelve years, Otto Hahn was the president of the MPS). --Cholo 3 (talk) 17:03, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Spin off the institutions into a seperate page?
With over 80 research institutes as part of the Max Planck society, it's a bit ridiculous. Almost all of the articles are stubs. If you look at the German page (https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max-Planck-Gesellschaft) there's a seperate page for the sub-institutions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rpeps (talk • contribs) 19:35, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

This would be useful, I agree. --Cholo 3 (talk) 13:14, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ Moved to List of Max Planck Institutes --Pavlo Chemist (talk) 13:30, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Languages
Is work languages only german or english also?--Kaiyr (talk) 07:27, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Max Planck Society. 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/20150916170723/http://www.natureasia.com/en/publishing-index/global to http://www.natureasia.com/en/publishing-index/global/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090413162135/http://www.neuroschool-tuebingen-cogni.de/ to http://www.neuroschool-tuebingen-cogni.de/
 * Added tag to http://www.imprs.ufast.de/

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) 16:57, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Max Planck Society. 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/20140201183503/http://www.age.mpg.de/de/karrriere/imprs-age/about-the-imprs-age-graduate-school/ to http://www.age.mpg.de/de/karrriere/imprs-age/about-the-imprs-age-graduate-school/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081229225207/http://www.mppmu.mpg.de/imprs/ to http://www.mppmu.mpg.de/imprs/

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) 20:46, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig is not included
Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig is missing from the Institute list. 38.69.57.27 (talk) 04:59, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Moved from article to talk page - please rewrite or delete
deleted (talk) 00:27, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

 * What is your issue with this paragraph? intforce (talk) 08:03, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Since you have put the section back into the article without changing it, you will also take care of rewriting the article. Luamssuk (talk) 20:19, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
 * You still have not stated why you think the article needs to be rewritten. intforce (talk) 21:59, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Max Planck Society


text: Category:Popular culture books

title: Category:Popular culture books


text:
USS Mattabesett (1863)

USS Mattabesett, sometimes spelled Mattabeset, a schooner-rigged, wooden hulled, double-ended sidewheel gunboat, was built by A. & G. T. Sampson, Boston, Massachusetts, and named for the Mattabesset River in Connecticut. Mattabesett was delivered to the New York Navy Yard on January 18, 1864, and commissioned April 7, 1864, Commander John C. Febiger in command.

Service history
Mattabesett departed New York on April 21, 1864, for duty in the North Atlantic Blockading Squadron and arrived at Hampton Roads on April 23 as escort to USS Onondaga (1864). Continuing down the coast to enter the North Carolina Sounds, she took part in an engagement between Union forces and the Confederate ram CSS Albemarle, accompanied by CSS Bombshell and CSS Cotton Plant, off the mouth of the Roanoke River on May 5. In the course of the battle, leading to the capture of Plymouth, North Carolina by Confederate forces, Mattabesett, with USS Sassacus (1862), captured Bombshell, but Albemarle and Cotton Plant escaped.

But for a brief trip to New York in the fall of 1864, Mattabesett continued to serve the North Atlantic Blockading Squadron for the remainder of the U.S. Civil War, operating primarily in the inland waters of North Carolina. She sailed north in May 1865, decommissioned at New York on May 31, and was sold there on October 15.

title: USS Mattabesett (1863)


text:
User:Denial

Me
The description of Wiki Expedianists fits me. Expections of enthusiastic communication with me are unlikely to be fulfilled.

What I do
I mostly contribute anonymously, but when I use this account it is usually to translate an article from the German wiki to the English one or vice versa.

title: User:Denial