text:
Talk:Physical law

Neutrality about universal laws
The section "Description" is a nonneutral point of view. The rest of the article is not as bad, but still mostly carries a subtle bias in favor of the existence of universal, eternal, absolute laws. For example, even the sentence which suggests we might not know the ultimate physical laws still assumes the existence of physical laws in the sense put forth under "Description". Critical 02:01, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

About Users Critical and CStar
For the record, the user Critical ( talk,  contributions), who slapped the "disputed NPoV" sticker on this page, has made his or her first edits tonight (or today) and within less than two hours has attacked eight articles for PoV, including (ironically given the CStar example given on the Logical fallacy talk page), Physical law. These were the only "edits" (plus weak justifications on talk pages in the same vein as this one). I don't think the PoV claim has merit. We may ask if this series of attacks is to be taken seriously.

For the following reasons I am thinking that these pages has been the victim of a tiresome semi-sophisticated troll and the PoV sticker should be removed sooner rather than later, if not immediately. We may note that CStar ( talk,  contributions) after making edits, paused during the period user Critical made edits, and then CStar took up responding to these edits after the series of user Critical edits ends, as if there is only one user involved, and the user logged out, changed cookies and logged back in. Further, user CStar left a note on Charles Matthew's talk page,  Chalst's talk page, and   Angela's talk page pointing to a supposed PoV accusation placed on the Logical argument page, when in fact no such sticker has been placed. Perhaps the irony regarding the Physical law page is not so ironic. Hu 05:18, 2004 Dec 1 (UTC)

 * I have responded to this on the logical fallacy talk page, as well as on the pages of the above mentioned users. It does appear that these pages were as Hu suggests the victim of a tiresome semi-sophisticated troll.  But I wasn't the perpetrator.  This suggestion appears to have been an honest mistake, I consider the matter closed, and it appears that Hu does as well. CSTAR 01:41, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Knowledge and epistemology
I wasn't aware of this page until the little incident alluded to by the above discussion brought it to my attention. Now that I'm here though I do have some remarks about the article (Yikes but I won't dare touch it) Now it is arguable that one can't meaningfully separate the two. I don't think I believe that, but I'm certain willing to listen to an argument in favor of this.
 * Doesn't the first paragraph mix two things which should be separate? (1) What is a physical law is and (2) how we obtain physical laws.
 * Do physical laws have to be generalizations? If so, how general do they have to be? Generality does seem to be a desirable property of physical laws, but again I don't think this really gets  to the heart of the matter.  Some kid discovering the principle that toys fall when let go, has discovered a physical law.
 * The properties of physical laws listed in the Description section, should have more clearly identified source attribution, that is some comment such as

 * Universality (R. P. Feynman, The Feynman lectures on XYZ, 1971).

 * Some of these I find hard to believe can be attributed to the sources mentioned. For instance, the property of Omnipotence to Feynman? Maybe, but I find it hard to swallow that he would have said something like that.

CSTAR 17:28, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * References are now clearly distinguished.--Johnstone 14:32, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Physical laws and scientific laws fall under the same general heading and could usefully be merged into one entry. I suggest that it is important to realise that the word 'law' does not fit comfortably with today's use of the word. Scientific 'laws' do not prescribe the behaviour of the world/universe/system/phenomenon. Scientific 'laws' are descriptive, not prescriptive. eg objects do not obey Newton's laws of motion. Newton's laws of motion describe the behaviour of objects. I suggest that this is an important distinction. (TCooper)

Movable type
What is a "movable type" law of nature?

The distinction seems spurious, at least without further clarification and some reference. Statistical laws can also be laws of nature; many well-known laws are.CSTAR 14:00, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

A Confusing Sentence, and Concerning the Usage of "Law"
"Some of the more famous laws of nature are found in Isaac Newton's theories of (now) classical mechanics, presented in his Principia Mathematica, and Albert Einstein's theory of relativity."

How does that make sense, especially given what the paragraph above it states? A law is not the same as a theory. --Apostrophe 18:47, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Despite what I write here, I see no great error in the article. It accurately describes the subject in the context of its typical usage. I guess I am only interested whether there is sufficient objection (other than mine, as I will describe) to the semantics of the phrase "physical law" to include noting such an objection in the article.

There is an argument to be made, perhaps elsewhere, for a return to at least a weakly more positivist perspective in scientific discussions; here, I only ask whether there is avoidable confusion, identified by Apostrophe, in comparing "physical law," an historical verbal construction, with "theory," which is a more modern and more meaningful formalism.

The reason the sentence Apostrophe cites makes no sense (Apostrophe is right to question it) is that the usage of the word "law" in this context has a metaphorical, social and literary source, rather than a source in the practice of scientific enquiry. The usages "physical law," "scientific law," "law of nature" and so on descend to us from the period when Western thinkers and investigators- in the process of developing techniques of reductionist enquiry- presumed a supernatural world where "natural lawgiving" entities existed. One goal of enquiry about the world, for them, was to ever more clearly describe the nature of such esoteric "laws" that are followed by the natural world, these laws being prescribed from outside of nature.

Whether or not a supernatural lawgiver exists, the presumption of the supernatural (including "irreducible complexity" and so on) is no longer part of scientific enquiry. But the metaphorical usage, "law," remains embedded throughout the literature, especially throughout the "meta-literature," that is, that literature that seeks to relate the practice of science, scientific ideas and the current state of scientific enquiry to non-scientists, and that that is used to teach science.

The continued use of this word seems to be a problem. One sees that "laws" are made by people, obeyed by people, flaunted by people, ignored by people, enforced by people, altered or abolished by people, to prescribe the behavior of people. People may invoke supernatural inspiration for the laws they prescribe, of course. No one has ever received a ticket for breaking a "physical law."

Continuing to use "law" in this way also invites the intrusion into scientific discourse- through the exploitation of what amounts to an archaic, misleading metaphor- of new avatars of old supernatural ideas, unnecessarily implying as the usage does the existence of an associated sentient "lawgiver." Few who now invoke the phrases "law of nature" or "physical law" intend this.

It would be helpful if the use of "law" in this context were just abandoned. It makes no sense to describe the more or less regular way in which objects in the world behave by resorting to such loaded social metaphors. It doesn't take much thinking to find alternate, less baroque phrases that would serve just as well; "observed basic nature;" "natural behavior;" "basic behaviours;" "observed fundamental behaviors;" "fundamental natural behavior" and so on. These examples aren't devoid of metaphor (maybe only organisms "behave?") or undesirable suggestion of unapparent hierarchy, but they're descriptive and pretty neutral. Smarter people can do better, I'm sure.

If the NSF and the NCSE and other entities who seek to clarify the distinction between "science" and "not science" were to urge that we abandon these archaic terms (including also the oxymoron "scientifically proved" for the meaningful and more accurate "clearly and convincingly supported by evidence" and so on) and substitute others that (in English, anyway) are more neutral, I predict the chief objections would come from those who desire to continue to insert supernatural cause and other "not science" propaganda into science curricula. Eliminating the semantic quagmire these terms instigate would be a simple step toward clarity, reducing confusion in the minds of those who mistake metaphor for synonym. Have you ever noticed, listening to or reading discussions aimed at lay persons of theories of a multiple-dimensional world, how the notion of "dimension" as described by a physicist (who means by this something like "linearly independent degree of freedom") is obviously misinterpreted to mean something else entirely by many in the audience (something instead like "an alternate physical world, where Spock has a beard")?

I fear I've gone too long. I'm new to Wikipedia. The question is whether the article can support a (short) linguistico-philisophico critique addressing Apostrophe's question? Or, whether such an objection is so insignificant that it should not be attached. Rt3368 00:05, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

 * in the vein of what Rt3368 has addressed in the above, well-spoken and long-winded monologue, I would like to (briefly) bring forth and put very strong emphasis, if i may, on a very important fact that needs to be taken into consideration by all, and within the article of discussion as well...

==Laws as definitions== Those laws which are just mathematical definitions (say, fundamental law of mechanics - second Newton's law $$ F = \frac{dp}{dt}$$), or uncertainty principle, or least action principle, or causality - are absolutely correct (simply by definition). They are extremely useful - because they can not be violated nor falsified.
 * I have personally falsified the state of "absolute" correctness of these statements-- simply by writing this comment. In fact, the moment I-- or anyone-- doubted the correctness of these statements, they were immediately falsified. There is only ONE Truth, ONE principle that is correct in the absolute regarding Science, and that is that NOTHING in Science is EVER correct in the absolute.
 * I think I will leave it at that.
 * Moosa17 05:52, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Laws as Idealizations
in the laws as approximation section, where would laws like say, the Gas Laws fit into the various types mentioned? they are not precisely an approximation, because they are exact if applied to an ideal gas, the only snag being that in real life there aint no such thing, leaving one with the uneasy feeling that rather than the law being the approximation, it is the real stuff out there that is regarded as an approximation to the ideal.

 * Indeed to add to this, we have "constants" in our Laws of Physics which cannot actually to be proven to be constants, since every time we measure them there remains uncertainty. Mathematically we accept constants as being invariable, but the real world continues to surprise us.  --2600:6C48:7006:200:D84D:5A80:173:901D (talk) 02:05, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Unreferenced
Tag added by —Preceding unsigned comment added by ClairSamoht (talk • contribs) 23:42, 28 September 2006

Removed absurd veri policy tag. The article is referenced. What is the problem? Please specify your objections rather than slapping an absurd tag on the page - Communicate! Vsmith 00:11, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Not all laws are physical laws
What about the law of natural selection??--Filll 07:53, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

 * What about it? This article is about physical laws, clearly distinguishing it from other-than-physical laws. Xihr 09:06, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

 * Unfortunately, scientific law redirects here.--Filll 12:40, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Doubtful about recent edits
They look like unsourced OR to me, and personal rants. Comments?--Filll 21:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

'Stable' or 'Eternal'
The section about the character of laws of nature notes that laws are 'stable', yet the source used (Davies, 1992:83) worded this stronger: 'Eternal'. I must say I prefer the word 'stable'. However, 'stable' has a 'temporary' ring that 'eternal' does not have: Did laws become stable? Can they become unstable? etc.

My impression is that quite some scientists might go with the word 'eternal' yet quite some philosophers and physical cosmologists might go with the word 'stable'. What do you think? --Matti 09:17, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Unsupportable "Distinctions?"
This article seems better now than the last time I read it. The second paragraph attempts to define a difference in usage between "physical law" and "religious law," "civil law" and so on. This distinction is properly repeated elsewhere in the article.

What's missing is a critique on the appropriateness of the use of "law" at all. Despite Feynman, et. al., "law" is a problem because it implies lawgiver. In 1965, this colloquialism had little moment. Today, particularly in the U.S., its moment is greater. In 1965, Richard Feynman could get away with derisiveness with respect to the analysis of "vilozoverz." In the era of Antonin Scalia, that dismissiveness is dangerous.

I have trouble with the distinction made, under the heading "Description", between "physical law" and "theory", that "Scientific theories are generally more complex than laws" and so on. This seems to be an arbitrary distinction. Newton's "Laws" of Motion (to use an over-cited example) are no more "simple" than Maxwell's equations (in say, the form of the Heaviside Four), and we refer to this representation as a theory. Similarly, the distinction between "that a thing happens" and "why and how a thing happens" isn't very compelling. I don't think that Quantum Electrodynamics explains at all "why" any of the behaviors it predicts happen.

This confusion results directly from trying to explain the use of a misleading, anachronistic "custom" of usage- a language game that was lost a long time ago and that now only invites comparison of an implied Lawgiver with Lawgiver(s) of revealed truth described in religious texts and traditions. No such comparison is warranted, but it entices.

The only thing we see in our observations are a great deal of phenomena that may be approximately described by more or less complex mathematical relations. That is beautiful and powerful and useful enough. The use of colloquial language like "Law" is both inadequate and misleading.Rt3368 18:52, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Expert needed
What constitutes a physical/scientific law is a topic in philosophy, specifically metaphysics and philosophy of science. Yet no relevant philosophers or specific theories on the subject appear to be cited in the article; it doesn't even mention Hume. (Feynman was a physicist, but not exactly a specialist in this area. The study of what constitutes a physical law is rather different from the study of the laws of physics.) This article definitely needs some attention from someone versed in the subject. I have added a notice to this effect.

Incidentally I don't think this article should be in WikiProject Physics. 'Physical law' is not the same as 'law of physics' - any scientific law is a 'physical law'. And (to repeat myself) the study of what constitutes such laws is not really part of physics. (Physics aims to work out the particular laws of physics that obtain in this universe.) Ben Finn 18:39, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the article ought not be in WikiProject Physics. But no scientific enquiry is rightly interested in any sort of 'law of physics' or any other sort of 'law'. Laws are made and enforced by lawgivers who are either persons or deities. The natural world- our observations of which are an object of scientific enquiry- is a collection of perhaps interconnected phenomena which exhibit more or less regular dynamic or static aspects. That's all. "Laws of Motion", "Laws of Thermodynamics", the "Gas Laws" etc. are merely anachronistic, colloquial, parochial and historical usages. No one ever had to pay a fine for breaking Newton's "Laws". Trying to explain this away by saying "By `Physical Law' we don't mean anything like `civil law'..." and so on is unsatisfying. What we really mean when we use this word, "law" in this way is that we are respecting what Hume (I agree he's the one to cite rather than Feynman) would identify as mere historical "custom". It is a custom moreover with no scientific value. Rt3368 22:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Equally, the categorization of this article as part of WikiProject Physics is mere custom. Rt3368 22:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Seems to me this article is categorised that way because physicists regard the term "Physical law" as being a synonym for "Law of physics". I'm sure most members of the general public would agree. Moreover, the text of the article reflects the usage in physics, except for a sentence someone added to the lead. If you want an article describing the usage of "Physical law" in philosophy, write your own and add a disambiguation; don't vandalise this one. PaddyLeahy 07:54, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I haven't vandalized anything and don't intend to do so. The article already strays very far indeed into "philosophy", as it stands. If the article said essentially,

 * "Physical Law is a colloquialism used in the sciences to refer to relations that are more or less regular between measurable physical phenomena. It is a designation used to identify relations of this type that are considered particularly useful for scientific enquiry, important and profound."

If all the article said was something like the above, then I would strongly agree with it and agree that it was an appropriate entry for WikiProject Physics.

Instead, we have a "Description" section with appeal to authority (Feynman, et. al.); invocations of "beauty" and "simplicity" etc. which are utterly subjective; we invoke a puzzling demarkation between "Physical Law" and "theory" which is entirely arbitrary:

 * "Physical laws are distinguished from scientific theories by their simplicity. Scientific theories are generally more complex than laws; they have many component parts..."

 * etc.

We add to these the philosophically-loaded attribute of "truth" ("`Physical Laws' are true." What does this mean?). This is followed close-on by the section "Laws as approximations"- and of course approximations can be true- but which includes

 * "...laws which are just mathematical definitions... are absolutely correct (simply by definition)... they can not be violated nor falsified..."

Really? Let us consult our Popper and Quine. The example (force equals the first time derivative of momentum) isn't a mathematical identity. It's a statement that a regular relation is observed between independently measurable physical quantities.

Then we have, in the section "Origin of laws of nature",

 * "So to large extent laws of nature are not laws of nature per se..."

Good grief.

I don't think I can reasonably be accused of introducing "philosophy" into the article (since I have never altered it) or of threatening to do so. I'm unsatisfied with the squishy writing, examples of which I've mentioned here. I don't think the article is at all clear. If it just said something like what I wrote above, "a colloquialism used in the sciences..." and so on, or something a little more elaborate, it would be clear.Rt3368 18:20, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Overlap with similarly-named article
I notice there is a separate article Laws of science (?previously and more accurately called List of laws of science), about the particular physical laws that obtain in this universe (rather than what constitutes a physical law). It seems to be some of this article could be moved there, and perhaps that article or this one renamed, so as to distinguish between the two more clearly. I'd suggest that one article be purely about the actual laws, and the other (this one) purely about what constitutes a law (i.e. this article with improvements as discussed above). This article could be renamed 'Law of nature' (or perhaps 'Scientific law'), which is I believe is a more usual term in philosophy, and removes the potential confusion that the term 'Physical law' is not limited to laws of physics. Ben Finn 15:27, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

True?
Laws of nature are not just "true", as it used to say in the article. For example Newton's law of gravity is only an approximation to Einstein's more exact general theory of relativity. It works very well in a broad class of situations, but it is completely wrong in some. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.167.229.54 (talk) 04:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

The Wikipedia entry on Science points out that scientific knowledge is for ever open to debate and modification, by its very nature. True or false are not suitable terms. Scientific 'fact' is information that has been rigorously tested according to the principles of scientific enquiry. Once adequately tested, they are considered 'proven' but always remain open to further investigation and debate. Newton's law of gravity is indeed an excellent example of this. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science : Scientific Method. (T Cooper)

Merge from Scientific law
Scientific law was proposed for deletion on the following grounds by User:71.167.229.54: "In my opinion, this overlaps almost completely with Physical law, but is much more poorly written and not as complete. Perhaps the paragraph beginning 'The term "scientific law" is' could be salvaged and merged."

On that basis I'm suggesting it should be merged here before being considered for deletion. I think expert opinion is probably needed… —S MALL  JIM   15:19, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

 * Support. Seems reasonable to me, and there's not much point in having two separate articles on it with so much overlap. Xihr (talk) 19:51, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose. There is a valid difference here, there are (apparently) scienctific laws in social sciences. Having never done any social sciences I can't comment on them but it would be a bit out of place to have a section on social science laws in an article title "Physical law". I would be happy with a section like that as a interm measure until it is expanded enough to warrant a seperate article. So perhaps create a section in Physical Law on social science laws and put the expand tag in it. --Shniken1 (talk) 03:56, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Very Weak Oppose. The point above is very well taken. Had I not read it, I could have voted a very strong support, simply because 'Scientific Law', which should be a very large article in a series that comprises the foundations of science, is (in my opinion) short, vague, painful, and was very incorrect until recently. However, I use 'physical' solely for the sciences of physics and chemistry, based upon equality; and 'natural' for the very many other sciences based upon equivalence. It might be best to fix (completely rewrite) 'scientific law' so its many definitions catch the essence of its uses by natural scientists, un-natural scientists :-) (sociologists), and others; then graft a definition catching the essence of 'physical law' to it, with a link pointing here. Geologist (talk) 09:23, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * If there is still an generally useful, experimental Law of Dulong & Petit and a theoretical law of Stefan-Boltzman, older geologists used 'law' in the same manner as physical scientists (though they often used 'rule' as a synonym). However, having recently learned that the consensus of biologists reverse observation and theory in naming animals, I can't write of the use of 'law' by any other natural science. Geologist (talk) 10:01, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

 * Oppose JAF1970 (talk) 20:33, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose fcsuper They have common subsets, but are not equal sets. The Scientific Law article needs a rewrite though.  I think the reason these articles are so poorly addressed in Wikipedia is that the people who use such terms do not use them consistently or consider there to be some noteworthy official definition in distinction.  They are just terms employed.  Law in science has changed in meaning over the past 200 years according to its use.  There really is no official hierarchy of terms that many people imagine. --Fcsuper (talk) 16:10, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

 * Given the results here and the age of this merger request, I propose removing the merger tag and closing this matter. --Fcsuper (talk) 05:24, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

 * Agreed. The consensus is obviously not there; I'm removing it. Xihr (talk) 09:41, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Physical laws elsewhere
There should be a section discussing the possibility of the law of physics being different elsewhere in the universe. JAF1970 (talk) 20:33, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * If you have a creditable source for this, sure; but, I don't think you'll find one. Possibilities of General Relativity make it possible that time runs at different rates in different regions in relation to each other, and I think that's the closest factual statement you'll find to that effect. --Fcsuper (talk) 04:42, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

 * Since it's pure speculation, it would likely have WP:UNDUE problems. Furthermore, much of our basis of understanding of the laws of physics is based on precisely the notion that they do not vary around the Universe, so it's questionable on its face. Xihr (talk) 04:51, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Subsection "Description"
This section contains unsupportable assertions. For example:

 * Simple. They are typically expressed in terms of a single mathematical equation.

That seems to rule out an algorithm, for example.

It also contains "weasel words" like "apparently must comply", "Generally conservative", "appears to affect them", "appear to apply everywhere". (I guess if I look out the window and see no violation, the law appears to apply everywhere, for now., eh?)

These very vague terms are unacceptable in any article pretending to be authoritative, and not just a tabloid presentation. Read Nagel. Brews ohare (talk) 16:24, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Is Newton's 2nd law just a definition? Feynman's take
I disagree with the idea that a law of nature can be just a definition. A definition can't tell us anything about the world, the way a law is supposed to. The following passage from Feynman is interesting in this regard. There is more to it that you may want to read which I haven't typed here. I propose that this article be changed accordingly.

This is from Chapter 12, section 1 (volume 1) of Feynman's Lectures on Physics.

Let us ask, "What is the meaning of the physical laws of newton, which we write as F=ma? What is the meaning of force, mass, and acceleration?" Well, we can intuitively sense the meaning of mass, and we can define acceleration if we know the meaning of position and time. We shall not discuss those meanings, but shall concentrate on the new concept of force. The answer is equally simple: "If a body is accelerating, then there is a force on it." That is what Newton's laws say, so the most precise and beautiful definition of force imaginable might simply be to say that force is the mass of an object times the acceleration. Suppose we have a law which says that the conservation of momentum is valid if the sum of all the external forces is zero; then the question arise, "What does it mean, that the sum of all the external forces is zero?" A pleasant way to define that statement would be: "When the total momentum is a constant, then the sum of the external forces is zero." There must be something wrong with that, because it is just not saying anything new. If we have discovered a fundamental law, which asserts that the force is equal to the mass times the acceleration, and then define the force to be the mass times the acceleration, we have found out nothing. We could also define force to mean that a moving object with no force acting on it continues to move with constant velocity in a straight line. If we then observe an object not moving in a straight line with a constant velocity, we might say that there is a force on it. Now such things certainly cannot be the content of physics, because they are definitions going in a circle. Thew Newtonian statement above, however, seems to be a most precise definition of force, and one that appeals to the mathematician; nevertheless, it is completely useless, because no prediction whatsoever can be made from a definition. One might sit in an armchair all day long and define words at will, but to find out what happens when two balls push against each other, or when a weight is hung on a spring, is another matter altogether, because the way the bodies behave is something completely outside any choice of definitions."

From the same section: "In the same way, we cannot just call F = ma a definition, deduce everything mathematically, and make mechanics a mathematical theory, when mechanics is a description of nature." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Singularitarian (talk • contribs) 22:37, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Origin of laws of nature section needs attention
The entire section "Origin of laws of nature" seems questionable to me. I don't believe that Newton's 2nd law, the principle of least action, Schroedinger's equation, the uncertainty principle, and causality are just definitions. At the very least, this is a controversial claim and should not just be stated as a fact. (See the passage from Feynman I quoted above, discussing Newton's 2nd law.)

This section then claims that most physical laws arise from certain symmetries of space, time, etc. But who says that the universe obeys those symmetries? There are physical laws that say the universe obeys certain symmetries. And where did these laws come from? We don't know.

The section claims that "the search for the most fundamental law(s) and most fundamental object(s) of nature is synonymous with the search for the most general mathematical symmetry group that can be applied to the fundamental interactions." These things are not "synonymous". Lots of physicists are not even taking this approach in their search for fundamental laws.

Then the section goes off topic:

The application of these laws to our needs has resulted in spectacular efficacy of science – its power to solve otherwise intractable problems, and made increasingly accurate predictions. This in turn resulted in design and implementation of variety of reliable transportation and communication means, in building more quality and affordable shelters, in creating variety of drugs, in finding new energy sources, in developing variety of entertainments, etc.

That passage has grammar flaws and is irrelevant to the topic of the "origin of laws of nature".

I propose that this whole section be either removed or completely rewritten.--Singularitarian (talk) 22:55, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Summary of Physical Laws, landing page
Hi,

Rather than emphasizing meta-conversations, what I wanted to find in under three clicks from a search engine is:

(a) a summary of the physical laws by name, containing no meta,

(b) links to pages that state more info on each law - ie. what the law is, as a physics student doing review would want to read, not hypothetically what distinguishes physical laws from arbitrarily man-made laws as a person who never took a single science course would be interested in reading.

(c) Mention of the mathematics and axioms that are relevant to the actual physical laws (not conversations about them), should have links to actual, specific mathematics and actual, specific axioms, rather than links to meta-conversations about what an axiom probably seems to be in layman's terms.

Specific information is considerably more valuable than meta-content. For example, this page ~ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_elementary_physics_formulae ~ is content-rich. A content-rich page on the Laws of Physics would be very well received.

JenniferOverington (talk) 16:45, 31 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by JenniferOverington (talk • contribs) 16:38, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

The laws of nature.
The saying ‘the laws of physics’ means that group of the laws which govern the material space time with its content of matter, electromagnetism and gravity. It is less clear whether ‘the laws o physics’ includes the immaterial space time with its contents of minds, memory and the conscious observers. Expression ‘the laws of nature’ has this advantage over the expression ‘the laws of physics’ that it can contain both groups of the laws because ‘nature’ is near the expression ‘behavior’ which relates to the behavior of the units in both space times. The laws of nature manifest themselves when there is a change in a unit. However, the laws define the kind of change when the unit is in static state after the change. Comparing the organization before and after the interaction we get the difference which defines the kind of change called the law of nature either in the material or in the immaterial space time. Distance in time between the two observations is the magnitude of time measured with the observers unit of consciousness ‘now’. Space and time also change so that the laws of nature apply also to the space times. When a unit is static and it is observed from the outside, it manifests static laws of nature. It will change only when it is in interaction with an independent motivation from the outside. Motivation is neutral and independent from the laws of nature but the changes which it causes are directed by the laws of nature defined by the properties of the interacting units. The interaction and the resultant change, brings to existence new laws of nature. The first and the most important law of nature is the static unit which is only one unit on its own. The unit only exists without non-existence and it is the most important law, in the plurality of the laws of nature. This one law applies to all the various units. The law is the static and invariable ‘One’. This first law contains within itself Nothingness ‘0’ and the totality of ‘1’. The ‘One’ contains itself and simultaneously it is within itself. It defines every unit which is always (the beginning-the interval of existence-the end) in the unlimited plurality (oo) of repetitions of the One. One is also every unit of limited internal plurality ‘c’ in (0<c<oo). All the units ‘c’ are on the outside of ‘0’, which is the ‘beginning’ and the ‘centre’ of each ‘c’ but every ‘c’ is inside of (oo). The limited plurality ‘c’ contains parts, each part a different limited plurality but the same organization. Each part is a different law of nature because it is different from every one of the remaining parts and different from the centre ‘0’, but only when observed from the inside as limited plurality ‘n’ within the limited plurality ‘c’ in (0<n<c). In turn ‘n’ consists of ‘p’ parts in (0<p<n) and so on until the ‘part’ is ‘1’ so that ‘1’ is the ‘end’ and the interval (0<1). In each point within the unlimited plurality (oo) there is a beginning ‘0’ acting as the boundary between two units or parts. The medium contained within (0<1) is the duality of the Nothingness ‘0’ and the observer ‘1’ who defines each unit irrespective of the internal limited plurality or organization of that plurality. When the observer ‘1’ exists there is no Nothingness ‘0’ and when the observer non exists Nothingness ‘0’ is not observed by the observer, so that there is only the eternal observer who only exists as the duality of existence nonexistence. The duality depends on the observer because only he is motivated by that which he observes in his ‘now’, when the observed unit is in static state. Motivation allows the observer placement of the boundary of Nothingness in a new point of the medium. The boundaries ‘0’ are all identical as Nothingness. The Nothingness does not change as the property of the observer, which is his ‘I’. Internal change or external change of a unit into two units is carried out within the boundary which contains motivation arising out of the difference manifesting the lack of equilibrium. KK (213.158.199.138 (talk) 09:24, 12 July 2010 (UTC))

Being reader-friendly
I suggest we merge the "Notes" and "References" -parts. In that way we can use footnotes (or whatever they're called on wikipedia) instead of putting the sources in parentheses; especially the "Description" is annoying to read with the sources in parentheses all the time. Please say whether you agree or not, I don't want to edit it before. Mottenen (talk) 14:17, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree - the attributions to Davies and Feynman get in the way of what the section is trying to tell the reader. Put reference numbers after each statement like normal articles, please.

Esoteric cybernetic (talk) 12:47, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Terminological mess (physical/scientific laws)
We have several articles about "physical laws", depending on how that term is interpreted. In addition to this article, we have Scientific law.

This article explains that "physical law" is ambiguous and could mean either "law of physics" or more generally "law of natural science":
 * Nor should "physical law" be confused with "laws of physics" - the term "physical law" usually covers laws in other sciences (e.g. biology) as well.

The lead also implies that "physical law" and "scientific law" are synonymous:
 * A physical law or scientific law is [...]

That "physical law" could mean "law of natural science" is more explicitly stated in Laws of science:
 * The laws of science are various established scientific laws, or physical laws as they are sometimes called.

Scientific law similarly explains that "scientific law" is ambiguous and could mean either "law of natural sciences" or more generally "law of sciences":
 * The term "scientific law" is traditionally associated with the natural sciences, though the social sciences also contain laws.

At first sight, I would say this article appears to be about laws of natural sciences. I would also say that Scientific law appears to be about laws of natural sciences. If that is the intended situation, then both articles should be merged. However, this proposition was rejected before, some arguing that Scientific law is broader than this article because it is about laws of science in general (including social sciences; see ).

Currently, Laws of physics and Laws of nature redirect here. Natural law (disambiguation) points to this article, not to Scientific law.

We need to decide how the overlapping topics of laws of physics, laws of natural science and laws of science should be covered, how the articles dedicated should be titled and how to proceed. Physical law should either cover just laws of physics or be renamed. See also. --Chealer (talk) 19:07, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree, I landed here by the redirect "Laws of physics". Not exactly (at all!) what I was looking for. Ssscienccce (talk) 03:03, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

 * I have just added a reference to a recently published book ("What the Romans Knew") on the history of the relationship of ancient Roman law to the development of concept of physical or scientific law in the history section. I also concur with the above posters that the article as a whole is conceptually confused and confusing. One problem is that some of the editors fail to realize the metaphorical nature of the use of the word "law". Also a discussion of, or at least references to probability and determinism definitely belong here though I don't feel qualified to contribute them, myself.173.52.247.137 (talk) 15:48, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Returning to the article after seven years, I see that it's not improved much. The reason for this isn't the proliferation of the similarly-titled articles or with their consistency or their overlap. It's the result of several minds trying to make sense of and justify the invocation of a cherished linguistic anachronism. These so-called "laws" are symbolic descriptions that describe more or less universally observed aspects of the interactions of physical entities. This is a profound thing: the ability to succinctly assert universal aspects of these interactions. Such descriptions don't require ecclesiastical headgear. The use of the word "law" is just a crappy, unsupportable bad habit.

It's not surprising that many, such as the frustrated-sounding JenniferOverington ("Summary ... landing page") would like it to be just a Table of Contents for a physics handbook or formula card. I think it probably should be that, really (and in fact Main article: List of laws in science comes pretty quick), but the lead should properly be a couple of sentences like "Physical Law is a colloquialism used in the sciences to refer to relations that are more or less regular between measurable physical phenomena...", blah, followed by "here are links to several of them," and be done with it - as I wrote years ago. The reason for not changing the pages is the same as it was in the earlier decade - it's all my opinion. It's a true opinion, but I haven't discovered a sufficiently impressive secondary source that has bothered to address the subject. Perhaps, one day... Rt3368 (talk) 07:32, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

A law of nature in itself.
There is a difference between the law of nature as the created unit and the application of that law. For example ‘water puts out fire’ manifests the law which informs of a predictable result following interaction between water and fire. It does not say however why water has this characteristic called a law of nature. Water consists of two atoms of hydrogen and one atom of oxygen. Neither of the two types of atoms puts out fire and each represents a different law of nature from that applicable to water. The two laws of nature, those represented by hydrogen and oxygen, interact and create a new law of nature applicable to water. The two types of atoms are also the result of interaction of the laws of nature applicable to their parts. Going back in the direction of smaller and smaller parts, each part a different law of nature, we reach the moment when only the motivation is left on its own with the law of ‘One’, meaning one invariable medium acting on itself. From this we can conclude that every unit, whether real or imaginary, is the sum of the laws of nature contained in the static unit in the observer’s ‘now’. Each unit in our reality is a different memory capable of being observed in the future. Thus; our reality consists of two elements, the static and eternal plurality of the laws of nature and the invariable motivation, also eternal. KK (83.5.122.56 (talk) 16:40, 8 January 2013 (UTC))

 * Whew! That's a lot of laws. The "water puts out fire" one is pretty crummy, to boot. When it's violated, as it often is, who writes the citation? Does the violator have until eternity to pay the fine? Rt3368 (talk) 06:36, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Terminological / teoretical / mathematical ) errors / confution
Hi. I am a rel.new user, and have no plan of editing articles in english. My english is not god enough. My lenguages are italian, spanish, and norwegian. But after readeng the article i had to say something. From the outside(article reader) it loks very untructured. The Talk page reveals some. I do not see the structure in the article. First one should expect definitions concerning the relationchip between hypotesis, theory, and Law. With their respective mathematical theory/axion confirming the law/teory that is addressed. This is not a matter of personal opinion. This is the way a law(either mathematical or fysical) is build up from just beieng a hypotesis. There is a lot to do with the article, if the aim is to make the reader understand the term Physical Law. There are several law's in physics. They ave all been thru the same process before been upgraded to laws. This process is also something one should expect from the article. Some of the contents is wrong, and some is non-sense.

The description section makes litle sense, and some of it (like Omnipotent) is not the atributes a physicist use. None of the current law's are omnypotent (this is wath Einsten spent his last yerars on). Their aim is to explain the universe (macro or sub atomic) without the need of reffering to any God (who is defined as omnypotent by cristians/Jews/muslims)

"Physical laws are distinguished from scientific theories"!!! All Physical laws's are proven scientific theories. Proven either theoreticaly (thrue math and/or known axioms)and/or empirical evidence (true observation/mesuarment/experiments).

Further we have examples section that comes before the theoretical explanation.

I have a lot of ebook's on the matter if ssomeone is interested.

MH Comodular (talk) 05:40, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

 * "Physical laws" can NOT be "proven scientific theories" because theories can not be proved by scientific inquiry or in any other way. Theorems of mathematics may be proven but theories are not theorems. The things that are the objects of science are our (imperfect) observations and our (imperfect) theories. What are commonly called "physical laws" are assertions, in words of regular language or in other symbols, that describe our observations of the ways in which physical entities universally, regularly effect each other or interact with each other. The further character of assertions commonly referred to as "physical laws" is that they may be stated succinctly. Rt3368 (talk) 06:28, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Examples
The Examples section contains no examples. It claims that classical mechanics, relativity "contain" examples. It also notes several names of examples of "laws of nature". I suspect the reason there are no examples here is because the entire article is fundamentally flawed. There is no single meaning for the term "physical laws". It is used in incompatible ways. Is a "physical law" known or only approximated? Where is the link to the correspondance principle? Is it a structure of a theoretical (abstract) system or a structure of our reality? The lede makes the statement that a physical law is "expressible" by a statement. This is just plain wrong. I know of no physical laws which is expressible without both a well defined context and without (one or more) mathematical structures being imposed on defined variables of that context. The section Description contains 9 bullet points supposedly listing "several general properties" and completely fails to acknowledge that there is no consensus. It also, as others have noted, uses weasle words: "they appear to", "they are typically", "they are generally". I also hold the opinion that a physical law may NOT be "true" but rather be "approximate" (eg Boyle's Law IS a physical law). "All men die" - isn't that a physical law? My point is there are many different definitions of the term, ignoring them is foolish, as is attempting to combine them all into a single thing. Finally, the very first sentence starts:"A physical law or scientific law 'is a theoretical principle ..." and yet the term "laws of nature" is used repeatedly throughout, not to mention the fact that the reader is refered to Laws of science without explanation of the difference between Laws of Science, scientific laws, Laws of Physics, physical laws, and Laws of Nature. I personally find this article adds to the confusion about the subject rather than dispelling ignorance.216.96.78.28 (talk) 17:25, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Isaac Newton and physical law
MjolnirPants has reverted in this edit and says, "The claimed wording does not appear in any source, as usual."

If you follow the first cited source here to New York Times and search for the word, "Newton", then you will find the following sentence:

His had originally reverted the edit by saying, "more true to sources; Newton did not 'come up' with that idea ..." So, as a compromise, I used the more exact wording of the source, "Isaac Newton first got the idea of absolute, universal ..." It's perplexing that MjolnirPants claims, "The claimed wording does not appear in any source, as usual" when it clearly exists in the cited source.

P.S. Noyster is correct to fix the incorrect term, "naturalist", with the correct term, "natural philosopher". Newton was not a naturalist (those who believe in naturalism). Newton believed that God controls the universe, as he wrote in Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica.

Moreover, the vast majority of scientists during scientific revolution were Christians, who just like Newton, believed that it was God who is in control of the universe.

69.75.54.130 (talk) 17:59, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * You claimed that you were using the source's "exact words" which is patently untrue. The quotes you provided above are not the wording you used in the article. Even if it were, it would need to be presented as a quote with attribution. Instead of searching them for "Newton", I actually took the time to read them and to write the passage the way WP policy states: to summarize the entire statements of the source on the subject, not to cherry pick two-and-three word phrases in order to present a different meaning, then tack on an unsupported claim to the end of it. Futhermore, the definition of "naturalist" you provided is not the primary definition of the word (it refers to a scholar of natural history according to a large number of dictionaries), and the word was frequently used as a synonym for "natural philosopher" during Newton's life. Hence my use of it. I'm perfectly fine with Noyster's change.
 * Finally, your entire last paragraph illustrates the exact reason why the specific religion in question doesn't need to be explicated: there were no other religions a 17th century Englishman would have conceivably adhered to. He sure as hell wasn't going to be a Zen Buddhist. Plus, there are major problems with replacing "religious" with "biblical" as illustrated by my most recent edit summary: the bible does not actually espouse the view that God created a world with perfect, immutable and unchanging laws. So it is a Christian theological view, not a biblical one. While I still think it's undue to continue to try to push your POV onto every article you touch, I suppose I wouldn't mind too much if you replaced "religious" with "Christian".
 * You are aware that an Administrator has begun a discussion of how to treat your POV pushing behavior, right? You've been notified of it on your talk page. So far, every participant is in agreement that you're hurting this project, and should be subject to sanctions to minimize the damage. I'm only bringing this up here because you've never responded to any messages left at your talk page. WP:ANI. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  01:59, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

 * @MjolnirPants,
 * I've already explained regarding the exact wording. I am willing to accept it as a case of a simple misunderstanding.
 * Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy states: Thus, most people who read the word "naturalist" would incorrectly assume that Newton rejected "supernatural" entities, God.  Let's just say this was a simple misunderstanding also.
 * I appreciate your willingness to compromise. I will update the word with "Christian".
 * 69.75.54.130 (talk) 03:30, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Accept it however you like, just don't try to quote mine to support POV pushing. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  04:00, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

"Christian" vs "religious"
There's some disagreement on which is the better term. For the record, I believe that "religious" is the better term, because there's no ambiguity (Isaac Newton sure wasn't a Neopagan or a Sikh, for example), but it's not clear that Isaac Newton would have considered himself a traditional Christian. After all, The Trinity is a Christian doctrine that Newton explicitly rejected. I offered to let the other IP change it as a form of compromise, and I still believe that "Christian" is good enough, but "religious" is better by far. MjolnirPants  Tell me all about it.  14:28, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

title: Talk:Physical law


text:
Talk:Hodges meteorite

Move "Elizabeth Hodges" --> "Ann Hodges"
Most sources, including all of the primary sources I found, such as newspaper articles and the website of the museum which has the Hodges meteorite, give the subject's name simply as "Ann Hodges". Those which say "Elizabeth Hodges" are secondary sources at best.

I propose moving this page to Ann Hodges. Jonathunder 02:02, 2004 Dec 1 (UTC)

 * I have completed the page move. Jonathunder 15:01, 2004 Dec 1 (UTC)

Another move
The sources for this article tell us Ms. Hodges was a shy person and was uncomfortable with the publicity she was thrust into as a result of being struck by the meteorite. Wikipedia policy has changed since this article was written, and biographical articles for people famous for only one event, as she was, are now discouraged. It would take only a little revision to make the subject of this article the Sylacauga Meteorite and move it to that title. If there is no serious objection, I will do that. Jonathunder (talk) 23:06, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I have revised the article and moved it to Hodges Meteorite, which is what most sources name it. Little rewriting was needed, as the article was already more about the meteor than the life of the unfortunate woman who was hit by it. Jonathunder (talk) 02:02, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Meteorites names are designed by the Nomenclature committee of the Meteoritical Society. The official name of this meteorite is Sylacauga and it is only slightly less common than Hodges Meteorite. In my opinion the main page should stay on Sylacauga (meteorite) with a redirect from Hodges Meteorite and Sylacauga Meteorite. Basilicofresco (talk) 20:22, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Note that there were several pieces of this space rock that fell over a broad area around Sylacauga, Alabama. The piece which hit someone, and generated so much attention, appears to be most commonly called the Hodges meteorite. A disambiguated name such as "Sylacauga (meteorite)" is less desirable if there is an undisambiguated name in common use which can be used in running text of articles. "Sylacauga (meteorite)" was never the previous title of this article. The former titles have all been variations on the name of the woman hit by the meteorite. Jonathunder (talk) 22:53, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, so I will stress within this article that Hodges meteorite, this is only a _FRAGMENT_ of the meteorite Sylacauga and I will add a link to the full Sylacauga (meteorite) article. Please note that "Sylacauga Meteorite" is not correct, it's like to say Ferrari Cars instead of Ferrari. Basilicofresco (talk) 07:41, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Fork
I forked the article: In my opinion this is the best solution. Basilicofresco (talk) 10:34, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) in Hodges meteorite I left everything about the fragment that hits Mrs Hodges and the consequences of this event
 * 2) in Sylacauga (meteorite) I put everything about the meteorite fall from a scientifical viewpoint

 * I'm not sure this topic is large enough to warrant two separate articles - this is actually a stub now, after all. I've proposed the merger of this article and Sylacauga (meteorite) since I feel the scientific and cultural/historical infomation can easily exist in one article under two different headings. Syncopate (talk) 22:35, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

 * Yeah, I don't see enough for two articles. The other fork should be merged back here. Sylacauga (meteorite) is a rather awkward name. Jonathunder (talk) 22:53, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

 * In my opinion Sylacauga (meteorite) and Hodges meteorite can coexist and there are no strong reasons to merge them. Neverless, if enough people feel merging necessary, Hodges meteorite (a fragment of Sylacauga) should be inserted as a section within Sylacauga (meteorite) article and not vice versa. About the awkwardness of the main article name... well for example even Jupiter %28mythology%29 is a bit awkward, but it is required by wikipedia guidelines in order to disambiguate it. (Disambiguation) -- Basilicofresco (talk) 12:22, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

External Link
Hello, there is an article here, http://www.encyclopediaofalabama.org/face/Article.jsp?id=h-1280, that might be useful as an external link. Thanks, Justin --Duboiju (talk) 17:24, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

 * Thanks! -- Basilicofresco (msg) 22:34, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

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

title: Talk:Hodges meteorite


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sterrance

Sterrance
Sterrance was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was delete.

One-off joke character from Homestar Runner. Wikipedia is not the Homestar Runner Wiki. -- Cyrius|✎ 02:03, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete: Joke vanity. Geogre 04:20, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete, as above Cdc 05:16, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Gosh sakes, it couldn't have been on screen for more than ten seconds; how are we supposed to write an article about that? Delete. - RedWordSmith 05:50, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Far too granular.  -- Antaeus Feldspar 07:34, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Very light keep. The only reason I'm voting to keep it is because it's linked to in the strong bad article and somebody might possibly want the info.  If it goes though, make sure the image gets deleted also -Cookiemobsta 07:37, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I was going to utterly remove it from Strong Bad, as it's not important there either. Even the HR Wiki lists the Sterrance on their Rejects page under "Characters that are a waste of time". -- Cyrius|✎ 16:08, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Very heavy delete. This is absolutely trivial and unimportant. I am absolutely serious when I say my coffee mug is more important than this. Average Earthman 16:05, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep for now. He was mentioned in one SBEmail, the most recent one no less, and might show up again later.  After all, Homsar, a pretty minor character, has a page... he's been in what, about 4 emails?  --Idont Havaname 01:18, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * The Homestar Wiki lists 18 separate appearances for Homsar, and the Bros. Chaps even sell a Homsar t-shirt. -- Cyrius|✎ 02:37, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to Homestar Runner characters. The Steve  01:33, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete: subtrivial fancruft. A waste of the miniscule resources it would take to store it. Wile E. Heresiarch 03:37, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Way too trivial. The criteria for being included in an encyclopedia is substantially higher than "has been mentioned once or twice by someone". -R. fiend 06:23, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Trivial, fancruft, should just be on Homestar Runner characters.   — Asbestos | Talk 13:57, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.


text: Category:Justices of the Mississippi Supreme Court


text:
Robert H. Michel

Robert Henry Michel (March 2, 1923 – February 17, 2017) was an American Republican Party politician who was a member of the United States House of Representatives for 38 years. He represented central Illinois' 18th congressional district, and was the GOP leader in the House, serving as House Minority Leader during his last 14 years in Congress (1981–1995).

His tenure in leadership occurred during the latter part of the decades-long era in which the Democratic Party held a majority in the House of Representatives. Well known for his bipartisanship and friendship with prominent Democrats in the house, Michel was eventually eclipsed by Newt Gingrich and other younger Republicans who favored a more hardball style. Michel did not seek re-election in the 1994 mid-term elections, where Gingrich led the Republican Revolution that resulted in the GOP taking control of the House for the first time in 40 years.

Early life
Michel was born and raised in Peoria, Illinois. His father was an immigrant from Alsace and his mother was the daughter of German immigrants. He attended Peoria High School. He received a Bachelor of Science degree from Bradley University.

Military service
When the U.S. entered the Second World War, Michel joined the United States Army and served with the 39th Infantry Regiment as an infantryman in England, France, Belgium, and Germany from February 10, 1943, to January 26, 1946, while also participating in the Invasion of Normandy in 1944. He was wounded by machine gun fire and awarded two Bronze Stars, the Purple Heart, and four battle stars.

Education and early career
After the war ended, Michel attended Bradley University in Peoria, graduating in 1948. From 1949 to 1956, he worked as an administrative assistant to U.S. Representative Harold Velde.

Electoral career
Although Michel was never part of the majority party, during his 38 years in the House he was noted for his bipartisanship in striking bargains. Michel was well respected across the aisle and was good friends with Democrats such as Speaker Thomas "Tip" O'Neill and Ways and Means Chairman Dan Rostenkowski.

Michel was elected as a Republican to the U.S. House of Representatives in 1956 and served until his retirement on January 3, 1995. He served as Minority Whip from 94th Congress through the 96th Congress. Michel served from 1959 to 1980 as a member of the House Appropriations Committee, including 12 years as the ranking Republican on the Labor, Health, Education and Welfare Subcommittee. Later, he served as House Minority Leader from the 97th Congress through 103rd Congresses. Michel voted in favor of the Civil Rights Acts of 1957, 1960,  1964,  and 1968,  as well as the 24th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Michel voted in favor of the House amendment to the Voting Rights Act of 1965 on July 9, 1965, but voted against the joint conference committee report on August 3, 1965.

Michel's toughest re-election was probably during the 1982 midterms, when he was in a tight race due to dissatisfaction over U.S. President Ronald Reagan's economic policies and the 1982 recession. Reagan travelled to Peoria to campaign for him.

Michel voted in favor the bill establishing Martin Luther King Jr. Day as a federal holiday in August 1983. In March 1988, Michel voted against the Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987 (as well as to uphold President Reagan's veto). Michel stirred a controversy in 1988 when he recalled enjoying and participating in blackface minstrel shows as a young man, and said he missed the shows. He also compared the removal of racially offensive words in songs such as "Ol' Man River" to the Soviet re-writing of history. He later apologized for having given offence, explaining that he was honestly attempting to understand and accept changes in U.S. culture.

In the early 1990s, Newt Gingrich and other young, aggressive conservative congressmen criticized Michel for being too easy-going and not fighting hard enough for Republican goals in the House. Supporters said Michel's practice of socializing with Democrats over a game of golf or cards resulted in deals that moved bills through the legislative process. It was also noted that Michel's voting was nearly as conservative as Gingrich's.

During negotiations with the Democrats who held majorities in the House and Senate, President George H. W. Bush reached a deficit reduction package which contained tax increases despite his campaign promise of "read my lips: no new taxes". Gingrich led a revolt that defeated the initial appropriations package and led to the 1990 United States federal government shutdown. The deal was supported by the President and Congressional leaders from both parties after long negotiations, but Gingrich walked out during a televised event in the White House Rose Garden. Michel characterized Gingrich's revolt as "a thousand points of spite".

In 1993 Michel gave the rebuttal to President Bill Clinton's address to a joint session of Congress, criticizing the economic policies of the newly inaugurated president. "The Clinton spin doctors have even given us a new political vocabulary, if you will – investment now means big government spending your tax dollars. Change now means reviving old, discredited big government tax-and-spend schemes. Patriotism now means agreeing with the Clinton program. The powerful evocative word, sacrifice, has been reduced to the level of a bumper sticker slogan", he said. He was later criticized for obstructing Clinton's economic stimulus plan.

As a result of Gingrich's rising prominence which gradually attracted support from the caucus, Michel decided not to seek re-election in the 1994 mid-term elections. Had Michel run in the 1994 elections and won, he would have served in a Republican-controlled House for the first time in his entire Congressional career. However, the caucus would have likely favored Gingrich over Michel as Speaker of the House, due to Gingrich's central role in the Republican Revolution. In announcing his retirement, Michel complained that some of his fellow congressmen were more interested in picking fights than in passing laws. Gingrich had a confrontational style, which contrasted sharply with Michel's bipartisanship, but Republicans retained the majority during his term. Gingrich's successor as Speaker, Dennis Hastert, stated his desire to return to Michel's style.

Michel was succeeded in Congress by his longtime chief of staff, Ray LaHood. Several years after Michel's retirement, LaHood praised his former boss. Michel "knew warfare first hand", LaHood said. "That is the reason he never used the macho phrases like 'warfare' and 'take no prisoners' when discussing politics with his staff. To Bob, the harsh, personal rhetoric of ideological warfare had no place in his office, no place in the House, and no place in American politics."

Namesakes and honors

On January 18, 1989, outgoing president Ronald Reagan conferred upon him the Presidential Citizens Medal, the second highest civilian award given, making him the 7th recipient of the honor. On August 8, 1994, he was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the highest civilian award in the United States, by President Bill Clinton. He was one of the recipients of the first Congressional Distinguished Service Award in 2000, along with John Rhodes, Louis Stokes, and Don Edwards. This honor was created by then-Speaker Dennis Hastert and then-Minority Leader Dick Gephardt. In 2010, he was given the Schachman Award by the American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology. The Society commended him for his post-congressional work in increasing public and congressional support for the National Institutes of Health which contributed to the doubling of the NIH's budget.

During the 1960s Michel was a frequent winning pitcher in the annual Democrats vs. Republicans baseball game, and in 1993, the Capitol Hill publication Roll Call, named him to its Baseball Hall of Fame.

In 1994, Michel received the U.S. Senator John Heinz Award for Greatest Public Service by an Elected or Appointed Official, an award given out annually by Jefferson Awards.

The Bob Michel Bridge, carrying Illinois Route 40 across the Illinois River at Peoria, is named after Robert H. Michel as is the Robert H. Michel Student Center at Bradley University. In the United States Capitol, the second-floor suite of offices occupied by the Speaker were designated the Robert H. Michel Rooms by the House in 1995. At the Capitol Hill Club located adjacent to the Republican National Committee, the cloak room is named for Bob Michel. In Peoria, Illinois, the VA Clinic is named the Bob Michel Community Based Outpatient Clinic. The Robert H. Michel Lifetime Achievement Award is presented by the Creve Coeur Club of Peoria each year at the club's Washington Day Banquet to recognize community leadership.

Robert H. Michel was inducted as a Laureate of The Lincoln Academy of Illinois and awarded the Order of Lincoln (the State's highest honor) by the Governor of Illinois in 1997 in the area of Government.

Personal life and death
Michel was married to Corinne Woodruff (Michel) from 1948 until her death in 2003. The couple had four children, Scott, Bruce, Robin, and Laurie.

In 1978, he required hospital treatment after he was robbed and beaten by youths outside his Washington, D.C. home. One perpetrator was caught and convicted in juvenile court of assault on a member of Congress and assault with intent to rob.

Michel died on February 17, 2017, at the age of 93 from pneumonia in Arlington, Virginia.

title: Robert H. Michel


text:
Flight 117

Flight 117 may refer to:

 * Air France Flight 117, crashed on 22 June 1962
 * Singapore Airlines Flight 117, hijacked on 26 March 1991

title: Flight 117


text:
Raggedy Ann

Raggedy Ann is a character created by American writer Johnny Gruelle (1880–1938) that appeared in a series of books he wrote and illustrated for young children. Raggedy Ann is a rag doll with red yarn for hair and a triangle nose. The character was created in 1915, as a doll, and was introduced to the public in the 1918 book Raggedy Ann Stories. When a doll was marketed with the book, the concept had great success. A sequel, Raggedy Andy Stories (1920), introduced the character of her brother, Raggedy Andy. Further characters such as Beloved Belindy, a black mammy doll, were featured as dolls and characters in books.

Origins
The exact details of the origins of the Raggedy Ann doll and related stories, which were created by Johnny Gruelle, are not specifically known, although numerous myths and legends about the doll's origins have been widely repeated. Gruelle biographer and Raggedy Ann historian Patricia Hall notes that the dolls have "found themselves at the center of several legend cycles—groups of stories that, while containing kernels of truth, are more myth than they are history. What makes this even more intriguing is that fact that Johnny Gruelle, either unwittingly or with the great sense of humor he was known for, initiated many of these legends, a number of which are continuously repeated as the factual history of Raggedy Ann and Andy."

Hall further explains that according to an oft-repeated myth, Gruelle's daughter, Marcella, brought from her grandmother's attic a faceless cloth doll on which the artist drew a face, and that Gruelle suggested that Marcella's grandmother sew a shoe button for a missing eye. Hall says the date of this supposed occurrence is given as early as 1900 and as late as 1914, with the locale variously given as suburban Indianapolis, Indiana, downtown Cleveland, Ohio, or rural Connecticut. More likely, as Gruelle's wife, Myrtle, reported, it was her husband who retrieved a long-forgotten, homemade rag doll from the attic of his parents' Indianapolis home sometime around the turn of the twentieth century before the couple's daughter was born. Although the incident is unconfirmed, Myrtle Gruelle recalled, "There was something he wanted from the attic. While he was rummaging around for it, he found an old rag doll his mother had made for his sister. He said then that the doll would make a good story." Myrtle Gruelle also indicated that her husband "kept [the doll] in his mind until we had Marcella. He remembered it when he saw her play [with] dolls.... He wrote the stories around some of the things she did. He used to get ideas from watching her."

Additionally, Gruelle did not create Raggedy Ann as a tribute to his daughter following her death at 13 from an infected vaccination. Hall notes Gruelle's May 28, 1915, application for the design of the prototype that became the Raggedy Ann doll was already in progress around the time that Marcella fell ill, and the artist received final approval by the U.S. Patent office on September 7, 1915, the same month as Marcella's death. Nonetheless, the anti-vaccination movement adopted Raggedy Ann as a symbol, though Marcella died from an infected vaccination, not from the side effects of the vaccination itself.

Naming Raggedy Ann
On June 17, 1915, shortly after submitting his patent application for the doll's design, Johnny Gruelle applied for a registered trademark for the Raggedy Ann name, which he created by combining words from two of James Whitcomb Riley poems, "The Raggedy Man" and "Little Orphant Annie". (Riley was a well-known Hoosier poet and a Gruelle family friend and neighbor from the years when they resided in Indianapolis. ) The U.S. Patent Office registered Gruelle's trademark application (107328) for the Raggedy Ann name on November 23, 1915.

Early books and doll design
Raggedy Ann Stories (1918), written and illustrated by Johnny Gruelle and published by the P. F. Volland Company, was the first in a series of books about his cloth doll character and her friends. The book's first edition also included Gruelle's own version of the doll's origins and the related stories. Two years after the publication of the first Raggedy Ann book, Gruelle introduced Raggedy Ann's brother, Raggedy Andy, in Raggedy Andy Stories (1920).

Although the female members of Gruelle's family may have made a small number of initial versions of the Raggedy Ann doll in Norwalk, Connecticut, to help market the related books, Gruelle soon established a merchandising agreement with P. F. Volland Company, his primary publisher, to begin commercially manufacturing, selling, and promoting a mass-produced version of the doll.

In addition to his patent application in 1915 for the design of what became the Raggedy Ann doll, Gruelle patented his design  for a generic male doll in 1920. A short time after its literary debut in 1920, Raggedy Andy appeared as a commercially-made doll, marketed by Volland.

Following the success of the first Raggedy Ann book, Gruelle continued to author and illustrate at least one Raggedy Ann and Raggedy Andy story each year until his death in 1938. In addition to books Gruelle also wrote lyrics for musical compositions that were published as sheet music and songbooks for children. These works included "Raggedy Ann's Sunny Songs" (1930) which was set to music by former U. S. Treasury Secretary William H. Woodin.

In his later years Gruelle collaborated with his son, Worth, on illustrations for some of his later books such as Raggedy Ann and the Golden Meadow (1935) and on a series of illustrated Raggedy Ann proverbs that were syndicated in newspapers. By 1938, the year that Johnny Gruelle died, his first Raggedy Ann book had sold more than 3 million copies.

Raggedy Ann doll sales were also growing. The P. F. Volland Company's initial order of 24 dozen dolls from the Non-Breakable Toy Company, the doll's early manufacturer, increased to about 3,200 dolls within the first eight months of production. With its growing popularity, Gruelle gave Volland the exclusive rights to manufacture and sell the dolls as long as it remained the exclusive publisher of his books.

Legal challenges
In 1935 Gruelle brought suit against Mollye Goldman (Gruelle vs. Goldman) after her company, Molly-'Es Doll Outfitters, continued to manufacture unauthorized versions of the Raggedy Ann and Andy dolls. Goldman's attorney argued that Gruelle's design patent for Raggedy Ann had expired in 1929, and Gruelle did not apply for a design patent or a trademark for a doll specifically named Raggedy Andy. The U.S. Patent office registered Goldman's application for a trademark for her Raggedy Ann and Raggedy Andy dolls in 1935. Her patent application for her Raggedy Andy design was granted on May 7, 1935. Goldman's versions of Raggedy Ann and Raggedy Andy closely resembled the Gruelle-designed rag dolls, which he had authorized the Exposition Doll and Toy Manufacturing Company to manufacture. Gruelle brought suit against Goldman for trademark infringement in October 1936, but the case was dismissed. He won the lawsuit on appeal in 1937. In the appellate court's option handed down on December 23, 1937, Goldman's company, Molly-'Es Doll Outfitters, could not legally manufacture dolls named Raggedy Ann and Raggedy Andy. Goldman was ordered to provide restitution to Gruelle.

Following Gruelle's death in 1938, Myrtle (Swann) Gruelle, his widow, took further legal action to secure the rights to his works, trademarks, and patents, including those relating to Raggedy Ann and Andy. She also continued to promote Raggedy Ann and Andy, among Gruelle's other literary characters, through the Johnny Gruelle Company, which also published the author's books for several years. (P. F. Volland, his primary publisher, had discontinued its book publishing business during the Great Depression.)

Legacy
By the end of the 1940s, sales of Raggedy Ann-related books exceeded 7 million copies. The Indianapolis-based Bobbs-Merrill Company became the authorized publisher and licensor for Raggedy Ann-related literary works in 1962, and the Knickerbocker Toy Company began manufacturing the Raggedy Ann and Andy dolls in the early 1960s. Bobbs-Merrill eventually became part of Macmillan Inc. and later Simon & Schuster, while Hasbro acquired Knickerbocker Toys. As such, Hasbro holds the trademark for the Raggedy Ann stuffed doll, while all other trademarks are claimed by Simon & Schuster, at present a division of Paramount Global but in the process of being sold to Penguin Random House, which would eventually collapse. The original for the 1915 doll design, as well as the Raggedy Ann Stories (1918) and Raggedy Andy Stories (1920) books, are in the public domain, their copyrights having expired.

The Raggedy Ann and Raggedy Andy dolls and their related memorabilia have become sought-after collectors' items. In addition to the dolls and books, other related items continue to be produced including adaptations of the stories into comic books, audio recordings, animated films, and television and theatrical productions.

Honors and tributes
The Raggedy Ann doll was inducted into the National Toy Hall of Fame in Rochester, New York, on March 27, 2002. Raggedy Andy was inducted 5 years later on November 8, 2007.

Related books
Johnny Gruelle, Raggedy Ann's creator, authored and/or illustrated dozens of related works. Many other books were released and in some cases credited to Gruelle after his death in 1938. In addition, numerous works have been written and/or illustrated by others such as Ethel Hays, who illustrated most of the Saalfield Publishing Company's Raggedy Ann-related stories published from 1944.

Written and illustrated by Johnny Gruelle

 * Raggedy Ann Stories (1918)
 * Raggedy Andy Stories (1920)
 * Raggedy Ann and Andy and the Camel with the Wrinkled Knees (1924)
 * Raggedy Andy's Number Book (1924)
 * Raggedy Ann's Wishing Pebble (1925)
 * Raggedy Ann's Alphabet Book (1925)
 * Beloved Belindy (1926)
 * The Paper Dragon: A Raggedy Ann Adventure (1926)
 * Raggedy Ann's Fairy Stories (1928)
 * Raggedy Ann's Magical Wishes (1928)
 * Marcella: A Raggedy Ann Story (1929)
 * Raggedy Ann in the Deep Deep Woods (1930)
 * Raggedy Ann's Sunny Songs (1930)
 * Raggedy Ann in Cookie Land (1931)
 * Raggedy Ann's Lucky Pennies (1932)
 * Raggedy Ann Cut-Out Paper Doll (1935)
 * Raggedy Ann's Little Brother Andy Cut-Out Paper Doll (1935)
 * Raggedy Ann in the Golden Meadow (1935)
 * Raggedy Ann and the Left-Handed Safety Pin (1935)
 * Raggedy Ann's Joyful Songs (1937)
 * Raggedy Ann and Maizie Moocow (1937)
 * Raggedy Ann and Andy's Very Own Fairy Stories (1970)

Written by Johnny Gruelle; illustrated by others

 * Raggedy Ann in the Magic Book (1939)
 * Raggedy Ann and the Laughing Brook (1940)
 * Raggedy Ann and the Golden Butterfly (1940)
 * Raggedy Ann and the Hoppy Toad (1940)
 * Raggedy Ann Helps Grandpa Hoppergrass (1940)
 * Raggedy Ann in the Garden (1940)
 * Raggedy Ann Goes Sailing (1941)
 * The Camel with the Wrinkled Knees (1941)
 * Raggedy Ann and Andy and the Nice Fat Policeman (1942)
 * Raggedy Ann and Betsy Bonnet String (1943)
 * Raggedy Ann in the Snow White Castle (1946)
 * Raggedy Ann's Adventures (1947)
 * Raggedy Ann and the Slippery Slide (1947)
 * Raggedy Ann's Mystery (1947)
 * Raggedy Ann at the End of the Rainbow (1947)
 * Raggedy Ann and Marcella's First Day At School (1952)
 * Raggedy Ann's Merriest Christmas (1952)
 * Raggedy Andy's Surprise (1953)
 * Raggedy Ann's Tea Party (1954)
 * A Puzzle for Raggedy Ann and Andy (1957)
 * Raggedy Ann's Secret (1959)
 * Raggedy Ann's Christmas Surprise (ca. 1960)
 * Raggedy Ann's Stories to Read Aloud (1960)
 * Raggedy Ann and the Golden Ring (1961)
 * Raggedy Ann and the Hobby Horse (1961)
 * Raggedy Ann and the Happy Meadow (1961)
 * Raggedy Ann and the Wonderful Witch (1961)
 * Raggedy Ann and Andy and the Kindly Ragman (1975)
 * Raggedy Ann and Andy and the Witchie Kissabye (1975)

Adaptations attributed to Gruelle, or based on his works

 * Raggedy Ann and Andy—with Animated Illustrations (1944)
 * Raggedy Ann and Andy Giant Treasury (1984)

Written by others; illustrated by Gruelle and/or others

 * The Bam Bam Clock, by J. P. McEvoy, Illustrated by Johnny Gruelle, P. F. Volland Co., 1920 (Later issued by Algonquin Publishing, circa 1936)
 * Raggedy Ann and the Tagalong Present (1971)
 * Raggedy Andy's Treasure Hunt (1973)
 * Raggedy Ann's Cooking School (1974)
 * Raggedy Ann and Andy's Cookbook (1975)
 * Raggedy Granny Stories (1977)
 * Raggedy Ann and Andy's Sewing Book (1977)

Raggedy Ann and Andy's Grow and Learn Library
A collection of twenty books published by Lynx, with each story containing a lesson, such as maintaining friendship when someone moves away or why parents must go to work. Raggedy Ann and Andy live in Marcella's playroom with many other toys such as Babette the French doll, Raggedy Dog, The Camel with the Wrinkled Knees, Sunny Bunny, Bubbles the Clown, Tim the Toy Soldier and more.

 * Sunny Bunny Comes Home: Marcella discovers Sunny Bunny in the attic and brings him to the nursery, where the other toys show off their talents. The rabbit doesn't have any talents that he can discern, but when he hops high to save Marcella's balloons, he earns respect from the other toys.
 * Little Bear's Problem: While visiting the circus with Marcella, Raggedy Ann & Andy meet Little Bear, who's dismayed that he doesn't get to spend much time with his parents. The dolls teach him that his folks are bringing joy to others, so Little Bear decides to concentrate on his own future career as a performer.
 * Sam Lamb Moves Away: Marcella gives Sam Lamb to her visiting cousin. The toys miss their friend so they send letters via the sparrows and discover Sam has found a happy new home.
 * Raggedy Dog to the Rescue: Raggedy Dog is jealous when Raggedy Cat comes to live in the nursery, so he chases her to Raggedy Land and corners her in a tree. Realizing that he's done wrong, the dog comes to the cat's rescue and they become friends.
 * What Can a Camel Do?: The Camel with the Wrinkled Knees can't think of a thing to do for the Talent Show, but he ultimately discovers that he has a talent for hauling the toys' equipment to the Talent Show.
 * Babette's Scary Night: When the dolls camp out in the playhouse, Babette becomes spooked by the scary stories that her friends tell, but they ultimately convince her that she has nothing to fear.
 * A Very Close Call: When the toys play a game of hide-and-seek, Bubbles the clown gets locked in the pantry, so everyone works to free him.
 * Grouchy Bear's Parade: Marcella brings home a teddy bear whom she names Grouchy. The toy feels obliged to live up to his name, but Raggedy Ann teaches him that it's okay to show his true feelings. Once he does, Grouchy is chosen to lead the Teddy Bear Parade.
 * The Box of Tricks: Raggedy Andy gets into a box of tricks that Marcella received for her birthday. The other toys aren't amused, so they turn the tables on him.
 * Raggedy Dog's Bone: Raggedy Dog is proud when he discovers a bone buried in the yard, but he learns that it belongs to Fido, Marcella's real puppy.
 * The Jack-In-The-Box: Marcella's cousin brings a Jack-in-the-Box who doesn't want to play with the other toys, so they put on a pretend circus and invite him to join.
 * Play Ball: While visiting Marcella's cousin's house, Raggedy Ann and Andy are asked to participate in a baseball game, but Andy discovers he's not a great player.
 * The Play in the Attic: The toys are placed in the attic while the playroom is being painted. They're initially upset by the move, but they dig through trunks and entertain themselves by staging a production of Goldilocks and the Three Bears.
 * Raggedy Dog Learns to Share: Fido leaves his ball with Raggedy Dog, who doesn't want the other toys to play with it.
 * Raggedy Andy's Perfect Party: Raggedy Andy suggests the toys throw a party to celebrate the first day of summer. Everyone is assigned duties, but he neglects to designate someone to decorate.
 * The Sleepover: When Marcella chooses Sunny Bunny to accompany her on a sleepover, the rabbit worries that her friend's toys won't like him.
 * The Birthday Surprise: The toys have assigned duties in preparation for the Camel's birthday party, but Babette gets distracted and is forced to improvise her bouquet.
 * Bubbles Goes to the Fair: Bubbles the Clown practices juggling in hopes of winning a prize at the Raggedy Land Fair, but he forgets to bring along his juggling balls.
 * Tim's Big Adventure: On a rainy day, Raggedy Ann decides to read a story to the other toys. Tim the toy soldier has no interest, but he's soon swept up in the drama and envisions himself as the hero.
 * A Parent's Guide to Raggedy Ann and Andy's Grow and Learn Library: Includes summaries of the stories and themes, plus tie-in activities for children.

Other adaptations
Many subsequent adaptations of the Raggedy Ann and Andy books have been published, in addition to the characters appearing in other media formats.

Animated feature films and shorts

 * Fleischer Studios/Famous Studios shorts:
 * Raggedy Ann and Raggedy Andy (1941)
 * Suddenly It's Spring (1944)
 * The Enchanted Square (1947)
 * Raggedy Ann & Andy: A Musical Adventure (1977)
 * Snowden: Raggedy Ann & Andy's Adventure (1998)

Theatre and stage

 * Raggedy Ann and Andy (1981)
 * Raggedy Ann: The Musical Adventure (1986)

Television

 * Raggedy Ann and Andy in The Great Santa Claus Caper (1978)
 * Raggedy Ann and Andy in The Pumpkin Who Couldn't Smile (1979)
 * The Adventures of Raggedy Ann and Andy (1988–1990)
 * Raggedy Ann and Andy and the Camel with the Wrinkled Knees (1988)
 * The Snowden, Raggedy Ann and Andy Holiday Show (1998)

Audio recordings

 * Raggedy Ann's Sunny Songs (1931 and 1946)
 * Raggedy Ann's Songs of Happiness (1934)
 * Songs of Raggedy Ann and Andy (1948)
 * Johnny Gruelle's Raggedy Ann Songs and Stories (ca. 1960s)
 * Hallmark "Read-Along Story Records" (1974)
 * Raggedy Ann & Andy: A Musical Adventure (1977)
 * Raggedy Ann & Andy: Birthday Party (1980)
 * Raggedy Ann & Andy: Pop Concert (1980)
 * Raggedy Ann & Andy's Alphabet & Numbers (1980)
 * Raggedy Ann & Andy's Dance Party (1980)
 * Raggedy Ann & Andy's Merry Adventures (1980)
 * Raggedy Ann & Andy: Bend and Stretch (1981)
 * Raggedy Ann & Andy: Christmas Party (1981)
 * Raggedy Ann & Andy: Happiness Album (1981)
 * Raggedy Ann & Andy: Telling Time is Fun (1981)
 * A Raggedy Ann Songbook (1996)

Comic books

 * Dell Publishing featured Raggedy Ann-related stories in a series of comic books.
 * New Funnies (volume 1)
 * Animal Comics
 * Four Color Comics
 * Raggedy Ann + Raggedy Andy (1946–1949)
 * Raggedy Ann + Andy (1948)
 * Raggedy Ann and Andy (1955)
 * Raggedy Ann and Andy (1964–1966)

Doll manufacturers

 * P. F. Volland Company (1920-1934)
 * Beers, Keelier, and Bowman (early manufacturer of Raggedy Andy dolls)
 * Exposition Doll and Toy Company (1935-mid 1935)
 * Molly-'Es Doll Outfitters (without permission) (1935-1937)
 * Georgene Novelties (1938-1962)
 * Knickerbocker Toy Co. (1963-1982)
 * Applause Toy Company/Russ Berrie (1983-2011)
 * Hasbro/Playskool (1983–present), master license
 * Aurora World Inc. (2012–present (exclusive plush doll license)

Doll production
Although the female members of Gruelle's family may have originally handmade a few of the versions of the Raggedy Ann doll in Norwalk, Connecticut, to help market the related books, Gruelle soon established a merchandising agreement with P. F. Volland Company, the primary publisher of his books, to manufacture, sell, and promote a mass-produced, commercial version of the Raggedy Ann doll. Early Raggedy Ann and Andy dolls were manufactured by different companies and not produced as matched sets.

Between 1918 and 1926, the Non-Breakable Toy Company of Muskegon, Michigan made more than 75,000 dolls for Volland. By the late 1920s Volland's orders for Raggedy Ann dolls from its manufacturer had reached 4,000 per month. When Volland ceased operations during the Great Depression it had already sold more than 150,000 dolls and nearly 2 million Raggedy Ann books.

In 1935, Gruelle granted permission to the Exposition Doll and Toy Manufacturing Company to manufacture and sell authorized versions of the Raggedy Ann and Andy dolls. From 1935 until 1937 Molly-'Es Doll Outfitters manufactured and sold unauthorized versions of the Raggedy Ann and Andy dolls until a legal decision handed down in Gruelle v (Mollye) Goldman prohibited Molly-'Es Dolls from further manufacturing and sales of the dolls.

Sewing patterns for homemade dolls

 * McCall's pattern
 * 1940 McCall's pattern #820, first appeared for a 19-in. dolls, Raggedy Ann doll comes with cape pattern
 * ca. 1945 McCall's pattern #914, Raggedy Ann Awake/Asleep dolls plus camel with the wrinkled knees
 * 1958 McCall's pattern #820, appeared with a slightly modified pattern for both dolls
 * 1963 McCall's pattern #6941, Raggedy Ann pattern has lost her cape, dolls now come in three sizes
 * 1970 McCall's pattern #2531, dolls come in three sizes, with a simplified pattern and different hair and face embroidery pattern, loss of button eyes
 * 1977 McCall's pattern #5713, identical to previous #2531 pattern, different cover
 * ca. 1980 new McCall's pattern # 7131, 36-in. dolls plus apron a child can wear
 * 1982 McCall's pattern #8077, a re-issue of previous patterns, new cover, dolls with different hair color
 * Late 1990s, Simplicity Patterns released a licensed doll pattern for a different design doll in four sizes.

 * 2015 saw another Simplicity pattern (Pattern number 8043) for 3 different sized dolls of both Raggedy Ann and Raggedy Andy. 15",26"and 36" are available. This pattern was called the Classic Raggedy Ann & Andy and copyrighted by Simon & Schuster.

In popular culture

 * In the original 1971 version of the Peter Pan's Flight attraction at the Magic Kingdom, a pair of Raggedy Ann and Andy dolls could be seen having a tea party at the very start of the attraction. The small scene remained until around 2018-2019, where it was replaced with a chair and a generic doll.
 * A Raggedy Ann balloon debuted at the Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade, flying for four appearances between 1984 and 1986 and in 1991.
 * A Raggedy Ann doll can be seen on the toy shelf in the back of the classroom Andy Barclay was in while attending school in the Universal slasher film, Child's Play 2.
 * A girl can be seen holding a Raggedy Ann doll in the 1996 Disney animated film James and the Giant Peach.
 * Barbara Beaird (Wendy)holds a Raggedy Ann doll while riding in a covered wagon. Although at the time of the westward wagon trains (1840s-1880s) Johnny Gruelle would have been a child.  Discovered in the  Wagon Train season 4 episode 31.
 * In Bump in the Night, the character Molly Coddle could have been inspired by Raggedy Ann.
 * Raggedy Ann along with Raggedy Andy appear in the South Park "Imaginationland" trilogy amongst the good creatures. Stan Marsh also dressed up as Raggedy Andy in "Pinkeye" for Halloween, not knowing that Wendy decided to dress up as Chewbacca rather than Raggedy Ann. The costume for Stan would later appear as a playable character in South Park Rally.
 * The allegedly cursed Annabelle doll is a Raggedy Ann doll living in Ed and Lorraine Warren's house in Monroe, Connecticut.
 * The character Ragatha from Gooseworx's The Amazing Digital Circus was explicitly stated to be based on Raggedy Ann. While Jax's voice was based on Mark Baker's performance as Raggedy Andy in Raggedy Ann & Andy: A Musical Adventure.
 * A Raggedy Ann doll appears on the cover of Golden Feelings, the debut studio album by American musician Beck.
 * Raggedy Andy dolls are featured in Amazon Prime's streaming series Them: The Scare. The main antagonist resembles a large Raggedy Andy doll.

Public collections
Gruelle's hometown of Arcola, Illinois, is the former home of the annual Raggedy Ann and Andy Festival and the Raggedy Ann and Andy Museum. The museum was closed and the festival discontinued in 2009. Some of the museum's contents were donated to Strong National Museum of Play. Other aspects of the collection were moved to the Rockome Gardens theme park in Arcola.

title: Raggedy Ann


text: User talk:129.177.44.38

title: User talk:129.177.44.38


text:
User talk:GeZe

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:49, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:GeZe