text:
Pre-Adamite

The pre-Adamite hypothesis or pre-Adamism is the theological belief that humans (or intelligent yet non-human creatures) existed before the biblical character Adam. Pre-Adamism is therefore distinct from the conventional Abrahamic belief that Adam was the first human. "Pre-Adamite" is used as a term, both for those humans (or human-like animals) believed to exist before Adam, and for believers or proponents of this hypothesis.

Early development
The first known debate about human antiquity took place in 170 AD between a Christian, Theophilus of Antioch, and an Egyptian pagan, Apollonius the Egyptian (probably Apollonius Dyscolus), who argued that the world was 153,075 years old.

An early challenge to biblical Adamism came from the Roman Emperor Julian the Apostate, who, upon his rejection of Christianity and his return to paganism, accepted the idea that many pairs of original people had been created, a belief termed co-Adamism or multiple Adamism.

Augustine of Hippo's The City of God contains two chapters indicating a debate between Christians and pagans over human origins: Book XII, chapter 10 is titled Of the falseness of the history that the world hath continued many thousand years and the title of book XVIII, chapter 40 is The Egyptians' abominable lyings, to claim their wisdom the age of 100,000 years. These titles tend to indicate that Augustine saw pagan ideas concerning both the history of the world and the chronology of the human race as incompatible with the Genesis creation narrative. Augustine's explanation aligned with most rabbis, and with the church fathers, who generally dismissed views on the antiquity of the world as "myths and fables", whereas Jewish and Christian claims were based on "revealed truth".

Augustine did take a critical view of the young earth narrative in some aspects, arguing that everything in the universe had been created simultaneously by God, and not seven literal days. He was primarily concerned with arguing against the idea of humanity having existed eternally rather than a Bible-based chronology of human history.

900–1700
In early Islam, a common belief held that mankind is actually the successor of other intelligent creatures such as jinn and hinn. Medieval Muslim traditions referred to the jinn as pre-Adamites, depicted as human-like in various ways. Although the notion of Jinn as pre-Adamites was generally accepted, the idea that other humans lived before the known Adam was controversial. From the mid-ninth century onward the idea appeared that God created several Adams, each of whom presides over an era lasting around 50,000 years. This concept was regarded as heretical, but was widely accepted by Ismailis and some Sufis.

A book titled Nabatean Agriculture, written or translated by Ibn Wahshiyya in 904, collated texts about the activities and beliefs of Arabic groups such as the Nabataeans, in defense of Babylonian culture against Islam. The book discussed the ideas that people lived before Adam, that he had parents, and that he came from India. It proposed that Adam was the father of an agricultural civilization, rather than the father of the entire human race.

The Jewish poet Yehuda Halevi wrote his Kitab al Khazari between 1130 and 1140, which featured a discussion wherein the King of the Khazars questioned three theologians (a Jewish rabbi, a Christian, and a Muslim) which was the true religion, and raised the challenge that people in India said they had buildings and antiquities which were millions of years old. The rabbi responded that his faith was unshaken, as the Indians lacked "a fixed form of religion, or a book concerning which a multitude of people held the same opinion, and in which no historical discrepancy could be found." The rabbi dismissed Indians as dissolute, unreliable people, whose claims could be ignored. Later in the book, Halevi rejected the Nabatean claims as these people did not know of the revelation in Scripture, and he dismissed Greek theories of an eternal world. In his conclusion, Halevi maintained that Adam was the first human in this world but left open other possibilities: "If, after all, a believer in the Law finds himself compelled to admit an eternal matter and the existence of many worlds prior to this one, this would not impair his belief that this world was created at a certain epoch, and that Adam and Noah were the first human beings."

The claims in Nabatean Agriculture were also disputed by Maimonides (1135–1204) in The Guide for the Perplexed. He attributed the concepts to the Sabians and said they were just legends and mythology which deviated from monotheism though drawing on Jewish sources, but in refuting the speculations, he circulated an outline of the ideas among other scholars: "They deem Adam to have been an individual born of male and female like any other human individuals, but they glorify him and say that he was a prophet, the envoy of the moon, who called people to worship the moon. and there are compilations of his on how to cultivate the soil." He noted the claim that Adam came from India, and went on to Babylon.

The presence of a belief in the existence of men before Adam among the Familists, a religious community in Friesland, was noted by John Rogers in 1578.

In 1591, Giordano Bruno argued that, because no one could imagine that the Jews and the Ethiopians had the same ancestry, God must have either created separate Adams or that Africans were the descendants of pre-Adamic races.

The 17th-century French millenarian Isaac La Peyrère is usually credited with formulating the pre-Adamite theory because of his influence on subsequent thinkers and movements. In his Prae-Adamitae, published in Latin in 1655, La Peyrère argued that Paul's words in should be interpreted to mean that "if Adam sinned in a morally meaningful sense there must have been an Adamic law according to which he sinned. If law began with Adam, there must have been a lawless world before Adam, containing people." Thus, according to La Peyrère, there must have been two creations; first the creation of the Gentiles and then the creation of Adam, who was the father of the Hebrews. The existence of pre-Adamites, La Peyrère argued, explained Cain's taking of a wife and the building of a city after Abel's murder in the Book of Genesis.

In Politica Hermetica, Laszlo Toth wrote that "racial theory has as its official birthdate 24 April 1684," when François Bernier distinguished four or five races in an article titled A new division of the Earth, according to the different species or races of men who inhabit it published in the Journal des sçavans. Because of widespread theological opposition to the pre-Adamite theories of his friend La Peyrère, Bernier published his paper anonymously.

Age of Enlightenment
During the Age of Enlightenment, pre-Adamism was adopted widely as a challenge to the biblical account of human origins. In the 19th century, the idea was welcomed by advocates of white superiority. A number of racist interpretive frameworks involving the early chapters of Genesis arose from pre-Adamism. Some pre-Adamite theorists held the view that Cain left his family for an inferior tribe described variously as "nonwhite Mongols" or that Cain took a wife from one of the inferior pre-Adamic peoples.

Racist pre-Adamism
In 19th-century Europe, pre-Adamism was attractive to those who were intent on demonstrating the inferiority of non-Western peoples, and in the United States, it appealed to those who were attuned to racial theories but found it unattractive to contemplate a common history with non-whites.

Scientists such as Charles Caldwell, Josiah C. Nott and Samuel G. Morton rejected the view that non-whites were the descendants of Adam. Morton combined pre-Adamism with cranial measurements. As Michael Barkun explains: "In such an intellectual atmosphere, pre-Adamism appeared in two different but not wholly incompatible forms. Religious writers continued to be attracted to the theory both because it appeared to solve certain exegetical problems (where did Cain's wife come from?) and exalted the spiritual status of Adam's descendants. Those of a scientific bent found it equally attractive but for different reasons, connected with a desire to formulate theories of racial difference that retained a place for Adam while accepting evidence that many cultures were far older than the few thousand years that humanity had existed, according to the biblical chronology. The two varieties differed primarily in the evidence they used, the one relying principally on scriptural texts and the latter on what passed at the time for physical anthropology."

In 1860, Isabella Duncan wrote Pre-Adamite Man, Or, The Story of Our Old Planet and Its Inhabitants, Told by Scripture & Science, a mixture of geology and scriptural interpretation. The book was popular among a number of geologists because it mixed biblical events with science. She suggested that the pre-Adamites are today's angels. Since they were without sin, for sin did not enter the world until Adam disobeyed God, there was no reason for them not to have been at least raptured into heaven, anticipating what would again occur with the second coming of Jesus Christ. Duncan also believed that some angels had sinned and fallen from Heaven, which caused them to become demons. Duncan believed that such an upheaval would leave geological scars on the earth. The concept of ice ages, pioneered by Louis Agassiz, seemed to provide evidence of such events, drawing the line between the pre-Adamic era and the modern one, which she posited began about 6,000 years ago.

In 1867, Buckner H. Payne, writing under the pen name Ariel, published a pamphlet titled The Negro: What is His Ethnological Status? He insisted that all of the sons of Noah had been white. According to his hypothesis, if the Flood had been universal, the only survivors of it should have been white, so why were non-white people living on Earth? To answer this question, Payne suggested that the "Negro" is a pre-Adamic beast of the field (specifically, a higher order of monkey), which was preserved on Noah's Ark. According to Payne, the Pre-Adamites were a separate species without immortal souls.

The Irish lawyer Dominick McCausland, a Biblical literalist and anti-Darwinian polemicist, maintained the theory in order to uphold the Mosaic timescale. He believed that the Chinese were descended from Cain and he also believed that the "Caucasian race" would eventually exterminate all other races. He also believed that only the "Caucasian" descendants of Adam were capable of creating civilization, and he tried to explain away the existence of the numerous non-"Caucasian" civilizations by attributing all of them to a vanished "Caucasian race", the Hamites.

In 1875, A. Lester Hoyle wrote a book, The Pre-Adamite, or who tempted Eve? In his book, he claimed that there had been five distinct creations of races, but only the fifth race, the white race, of which Adam was the father, had been made in God's own image and likeness. Hoyle further suggested that Cain was the "mongrel offspring" of Eve's being seduced by "an enticing Mongolian" with whom she had repeated trysts, thus laying the foundation for the white supremacist bio-theology that miscegenation was "an abomination".

In an unusual blend of contemporary evolutionary thinking and pre-Adamism, the Vanderbilt University theistic evolutionist and geologist Alexander Winchell argued in his 1878 tract, Adamites and Preadamites, for the pre-Adamic origins of the human race, on the basis that the Negroes were too racially inferior to have been descended from the Biblical Adam. Winchell also believed that the laws of evolution operated according to the will of God.

In 1891, William Campbell, under the pen name "Caucasian", wrote in Anthropology for the People: A Refutation of the Theory of the Adamic Origin of All Races that the non-white peoples were not the descendants of Adam and were therefore "not brothers in any proper sense of the term, but inferior creations" and he also wrote that polygenism was the "only theory reconcilable with scripture." Like Payne before him, Campbell viewed the Great Flood as a consequence of intermarriage between the white (Adamic) and the nonwhite (pre-Adamic) peoples "the only union we can think of that is reasonable and sufficient to account for the corruption of the world and the consequent judgement."

In 1900, Charles Carroll wrote the first of his two books on pre-Adamism, The Negro a Beast; or, In the Image of God, in which he sought to revive the ideas which had previously been presented by Buckner H. Payne, describing the Negro as a literal ape rather than a human. In a second book which was published in 1902, The Tempter of Eve, he put forth the idea that the serpent was actually a black female, and he also theorized that miscegenation was the greatest of all sins. Carroll claimed that the pre-Adamite races, such as blacks, did not have souls. He believed that race mixing was an insult to God because it spoiled His racial plan of creation, and he also believed that the mixing of races had led to the errors of atheism and evolution.

The Scottish millennialist George Dickison wrote The Mosaic Account of Creation, As Unfolded in Genesis, Verified by Science in 1902. The book mixed science with a scientifically enhanced reading of Genesis and it also listed geological discoveries which showed that men existed before Adam had been created and proved that Earth was much older than the 6000-year-old span of the Adamic race. Dickison welcomed scientific discoveries from fossil evidence and the palaontological record and used them as evidence of pre-Adamism.

The doctrine which is known as British Israelism, which developed in England in the 19th century, also included a pre-Adamic worldview but Pre-Adamism was a minority position. The model viewed pre-Adamites as a race of inferior bestial creatures which was not descended from Adam, because according to it, Adam was the first white man and consequently, he was the first son of God. In the narrative, Satan seduces Eve, and the resulting offspring is a hybrid creature, Cain. Later, Cain flees to East Turkestan to establish a colony of followers who are intent on realizing the Devil's plan for domination of the earth. A further elaboration of this myth involved the identification of the Jews with the Canaanites, the putative descendants of Cain, but the eponymous ancestor of the Canaanites is not Cain, but Canaan. It followed that if the tribes of Judah were supposed to have intermarried with Cain's descendants, the Jews were both the offspring of Satan and the descendants of sundry nonwhite pre-Adamic races.

In the United States, philo-Semitic British Israelism developed into the antisemitic Christian Identity movement and the serpent seed doctrine. Identity preacher Conrad Gaard wrote that the serpent was a "beast of the field" who was the father of Cain, and since Cain married a pre-Adamite, his descendants were a "mongrel, hybrid race".

Non-racist pre-Adamism
The occultist Paschal Beverly Randolph published Pre-Adamite Man: Demonstrating The Existence of the Human Race Upon the Earth 100,000 Thousand Years Ago! under the name Griffin Lee in 1863. The book took a primarily scientific view of pre-Adamism, relying on evidence from linguistics, anthropology, archaeology, paleontology, and ancient history. Being a polygenist, Randolph argued that the color of races, particularly black, was not the result of climate and was proof of separate, pre-Adamite origins.

Pre-Adamite theories have also been held by a number of mainstream Christians such as the Congregational evangelist R. A. Torrey (1856–1928), who believed in the Gap Theory. Torrey believed it was possible to accept both evolution and biblical infallibility, with the pre-Adamite as the bridge between religion and science.

Gleason Archer Jr. was a believer in pre-Adamism. In his 1985 book A Survey of Old Testament Introduction he wrote, "To revert to the problem of the Pithecanthropus, the Swanscombe man, the Neanderthal and all the rest (possibly even the Cro-magnon man, who is apparently to be classed as Homo sapiens, but whose remains seem to date back at least to 20,000 B.C.) it seems best to regard these races as all prior to Adam's time, and not involved in the Adamic covenant. We must leave the question open, in view of the cultural remains, whether these pre-Adamic creatures had souls (or, to use the trichotomic terminology, spirits)."

Archer asserted that only Adam and his descendants were infused with the breath of God and a spiritual nature corresponding to God himself, and that all mankind subsequent to Adam's time must have been literally descended from him. Regarding the concept of pre-Adamic races (such as the Cro-Magnon man), he says: "They may have been exterminated by God for unknown reasons prior to the creation of the original parent of the present human race."

More recently, such ideas have been promoted by Kathryn Kuhlman and Derek Prince among Pentecostals, John Stott among Anglicans, Old Earth creationist Hugh Ross, and computational biologist S. Joshua Swamidass.

title: Pre-Adamite


text:
History of the Jews in Armenia

The history of the Jews in Armenia is one of the Jewish communities in the Caucasus region. There is evidence of Jewish settlement in the Armenian Highlands dating as early 1st century BC.

Historical Armenia
There are historical records that attest to the presence of Jews in pagan Armenia, before the spread of Christianity in the region by St. Gregory the Illuminator in 301 AD. Early medieval Armenian historians, such as 5th century historian Moses Khorenatsi, held that during the conquest of Armenian King Tigranes the Great (95–55 BC) he brought with him 10,000 Jewish captives to the ancient Kingdom of Armenia (which encompassed what is commonly known as Greater Armenia) when he retreated from Judea, because of the Roman attack on Armenia in 69 BC. Tigranes II invaded Syria, and probably the northern (Roman province of) Palestine as well. A large Jewish population was settled in Armenia from the 1st century BC. One city in particular, Vartkesavan, became an important commercial center. Like the rest of Armenia's population, they suffered the consequences of regional powers trying to divide and conquer the country. By 360–370 AD, there was a massive increase in Jewish Hellenistic immigration into Armenia; many Armenian towns became predominately Jewish. After the conquest of Armenia in the 4th century AD by the Sassanid King Shapur II, he deported thousands of Jewish families from Persian Armenia and resettled them at Isfahan in modern Iran.

In 1912 the archaeologist Nikolai Marr announced the discovery in 1910 of a tombstone in the village of Yeghegis that carried a Hebrew inscription. In 1996 investigations at Yeghegis, in Armenia's province of Vayotz Dzor, discovered the remains of a medieval Jewish cemetery from a previously unknown Jewish community. In 2000, a team from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem excavated on the southern side of the Yeghegis river, opposite the village, a Jewish cemetery with 40 gravestones with Hebrew inscriptions dating between 1266 and 1347. One non-Hebrew word in the inscriptions may indicate the origin of the community. Michael Nosonovsky has stated that "The word khawajah is of Persian origin and it probably indicates that the Jews who settled in Yeghegis came from Persia and kept Persian as their spoken language. Biblical quotations and Talmudic formulas are evidence of a high learning standard in the community." A group of Armenian and Israeli archaeologists and historians excavated the site in 2001 and 2002 and found 64 more tombstones. Some are decorated with motifs of the Orbelian kingdom. The archaeological team also found three mills, which the bishop says show that the community had a business because one mill could feed several families. 9 of these tombstones had inscriptions, all in Hebrew except for two, which were in Aramaic. The oldest dated stone was from 1266 and the latest date was 1336/7.

Modern period
In 1828, the Russo-Persian War came to an end and Eastern Armenia (currently the Republic of Armenia) was annexed to the Russian Empire with the Treaty of Turkmenchai. Polish and Iranian Jews began arriving, as well as Sabbatarians (Subbotniks, Russian peasants who were banished to the outskirts of Imperial Russia during the reign of Catherine II. They were Judaizing Christians and mostly converted to mainstream Judaism or assimilated). Since 1840 they started creating Ashkenazi and Mizrahi communities respectively in Yerevan. Up to 1924, the Sephardic synagogue, Shiek Mordechai, was a leading institution among the Jewish community.

According to the 1897 Russian Empire Census, there were some 415 people in Alexandropol (Gyumri) and 204 in Erivan (Yerevan) whose native language was "Jewish" and significantly smaller numbers elsewhere 6 in Vagharshapat, 15 in Novo-Bayazet. The number of self-reported Jewish-speakers was the following in other Armenian-populated areas of the Russian Empire that now lie outside Armenia: 4 in Shusha (Azerbaijan), 93 in Elizavetpol (Ganja, Azerbaijan), 4 in Iğdır (now Turkey), 424 in Kars (Turkey), 111 in Ardahan (Turkey), 189 in Akhalkalaki (Georgia), 438 in Akhaltsikhe (Georgia), 72 in Shulaveri (Georgia).

As for Western Armenia (Turkish Armenia), according to official Ottoman figures from 1914, 3,822 Jews lived in the "Six vilayets" that had significant Armenian population: 2,085 in Diyarbekir Vilayet, 1,383 in Van Vilayet, 344 in Sivas Vilayet, 10 in Erzurum Vilayet, and none in Bitlis and Mamuret-ul-Aziz (Harput). There were further 317 Jews in historical Cilicia: 66 in Adana Vilayet and 251 in Maraş Sanjak. The Russian Jewish communities moved to Armenia on a larger scale during the Soviet period, looking for an atmosphere of tolerance in the area that was absent in the Russian SSR or Ukrainian SSR.

Following World War II, the Jewish population rose to approximately 5,000. In 1959, the Jewish population peaked in Soviet Armenia at approximately 10,000 people. Another wave of Jewish immigrants arrived in the country between 1965 and 1972, mainly intelligentsia, military, and engineers. These Jews arrived from Russia and Ukraine, attracted to the more liberal society. However, with the dissolution of the Soviet Union many of them left due to the First Nagorno-Karabakh War. Between 1992 and 1994, more than 6,000 Jews immigrated to Israel because of Armenia's political isolation and economic depression. Today the country's Jewish population has shrunk to around 750. In 1995, the Chabad House was established in Yerevan.

Present day

There are about 500–1000 Jews presently living in Armenia, mainly in the capital Yerevan.

There is a tiny community of Subbotniks (believed to be a Judaizing community that evolved from the Molokan Spiritual Christians) whose ancestors converted to Judaism, and who are quickly dwindling.

The Jewish Community in Yerevan is currently headed by Chief Rabbi Gershon Burshtein from the Chabad Lubavitch, and the sociopolitical matters are run by the Jewish Council of Armenia.

2022 influx of Russian Jews
The Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 triggered mass emigration from Russia caused by fear of mobilization and political repression. Over 40,000 Russians moved to Armenia thanks to its geographic proximity, relatively low cost of living and lax immigration rules. At least several hundred of these immigrants identify as Jewish. As a result, Armenia's Jewish population has at least doubled. A Russian Jewish community club called "Yerevan Jewish Home" was established by Nathaniel Trubkin, a Moscow journalist who immigrated to Armenia in March 2022.

Human rights
The President of the Jewish Community in Armenia, Rima Varzhapetyan-Feller, has stated on January 23, 2015, that "The Jewish community feels itself protected in Armenia, and the authorities respect their rights, culture, and traditions. There is no anti-Semitism in Armenia, and we enjoy good relations with the Armenians. Of course, the community has certain problems that originate from the general situation of the country."

In 2005, Armen Avetisian, the openly anti-Semitic leader of the Armenian Aryan Union, a small ultranationalist party, alleged that there are as many as 50,000 "disguised" Jews in Armenia. He promised that he would work to have them expelled from the country. He was arrested in January 2005 on charges of inciting ethnic hatred.

There have been two recorded incidents, in 2007 and in 2010, of vandalism by unknown individuals on the Jewish side of the Joint Tragedies Memorial in Aragast Park, Yerevan that commemorates both the Armenian genocide and the Holocaust. This monument had replaced a smaller monument that had been defaced and toppled several times.

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

title: History of the Jews in Armenia


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tuti

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. 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. jni 16:39, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Tuti
His complete name (Tuti Fornari) gets 53 Google hits, most restricted to the city of Campinas in Brazil. And his site is amateurish. JoaoRicardo 06:15, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC) This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
 * Delete, article does not establish notability, website promo. Megan1967 07:02, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, self-promotion. Wyss 11:20, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

title: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tuti


text:
River Maigue

The River Maigue rises in the Milford area of north County Cork, Ireland. The River Maigue is 38.75 mi long. It drains an area of 1000 sqkm

It is joined by the small River Glen and the larger River Loobagh in south County Limerick. It then flows north through Bruree, after which it augmented by the River Morning Star. It flows through Croom and Adare before entering the Shannon Estuary just north of Ferry Bridge between Kildimo and Clarina, just west of Limerick city. The River Maigue is tidal up to Adare on the N21 Road Bridge.

History
In ancient times the Maigue was central to the territories of the O'Donovans and their predecessors in Uí Chairpre Áebda (Cairbre Eva). The majority of its towns and villages were once the sites of fortresses. Later these territories were occupied by the FitzGerald dynasty.

The beautiful slow song in Irish, ‘Slán le Máigh’, was written by Aindrias Mac Craith, a poet from the local area who lived in the 18th century. The song is still widely sung and is also played as a slow air.

River Loobagh
The Loobagh is a river with healthy Trout and Salmon populations. It rises in the hills south of Kilfinane and flows through Kilmallock. It joins the Maigue south of Bruree.

Morning Star River
The Morning Star is a little river which flows westwards through rich farmland through Bruff and Athlacca to join the Maigue north of Bruree.

Camogue River
The River Camogue flows in a westerly direction through Grange, Meanus and Manister and joins the Maigue upstream of Croom.

title: River Maigue


text:
Funnel cloud

A funnel cloud is a funnel-shaped cloud of condensed water droplets, associated with a rotating column of wind and extending from the base of a cloud (usually a cumulonimbus or towering cumulus cloud) but not reaching the ground or a water surface. A funnel cloud is usually visible as a cone-shaped or needle like protuberance from the main cloud base. Funnel clouds form most frequently in association with supercell thunderstorms, and are often, but not always, a visual precursor to tornadoes. Funnel clouds are visual phenomena, but these are not the vortex of wind itself.

"Classic" funnel clouds
If a funnel cloud touches the surface the feature is considered a tornado, although ground level circulations begin before the visible condensation cloud appears. Most tornadoes begin as funnel clouds, but some funnel clouds do not make surface contact and these cannot be counted as tornadoes from the perspective of a naked eye observer, even as tornadic circulations of some intensity almost always are detectable when low-level radar observations are available. Also, tornadoes occur with some frequency without an associated condensation funnel. The term condensation funnel may refer to either a tornadic cloud or a funnel cloud aloft, but the term funnel cloud exclusively refers to a rotating condensation funnel not reaching the surface. If strong cyclonic winds are occurring at the surface and are connected to a cloud base, regardless of condensation, then the feature is a tornado.

Funnel clouds result from the low air pressures found within tornadoes. The low air pressure causes air flowing towards the vortex to expand and cool. If the air is sufficiently moist and cools to the dew point, a funnel cloud is produced. The air pressure around the outer edge of the funnel cloud generally corresponds to the air pressure of the cloud base of the parent cloud.

Debris swirls are usually evident prior to the condensation funnel reaching the surface. Some tornadoes may appear only as a debris swirl, with no obvious funnel cloud extending below the rotating cloud base at any time during the tornadic life cycle. The surface level vortex tends to strengthen over time following initial formation, making the debris swirls and the condensation more apparent.

In cloud nomenclature, any funnel- or inverted-funnel-shaped cloud descending from cumulus or cumulonimbus clouds is technically described as an accessory feature called tuba. The terms tuba and funnel cloud are nearly but not exactly synonymous; a wall cloud, for example, is also a form of tuba. Funnel clouds associated with supercells usually form within and under wall clouds.

Cold-air funnel clouds
Cold-air funnel clouds (vortices) are generally much weaker than the vortices produced by supercells. Although cold-air funnels rarely make ground contact, surface level vortices sometimes become strong enough for condensation cloud to "touch down" briefly, becoming visible as weak tornadoes or waterspouts.

Unlike the related phenomenon associated with severe thunderstorms, cold-air funnels are generally associated with partly cloudy skies in the wake of cold fronts, especially associated with certain low pressure systems, or in association with atmospheric boundaries such as lake and sea breezes or outflow boundaries.

The larger scale weather conditions are characterized by particularly cold air aloft over relatively warmer low level air, leading to high lapse rates, and often by high environmental vorticity yet relatively meager vertical wind shear. The funnels develop where atmospheric instability and moisture are sufficient to support towering cumulus clouds but typically limited to no or to little precipitation. Cold-air funnels, although weak, may persist for several minutes, and areas of intermittently forming funnel clouds may occur for tens of minutes.

Multiple such areas of activity may form within the same region during afternoon heating. Cold-air funnels appears to be a diurnal phenomenon, weakening and eventually dissipating with loss of solar heating. When precipitation does develop, the associated downdraft tends to cause rapid demise of the cold-air funnels. The mixing of cooler air in the lower troposphere with air flowing in a different direction in the middle troposphere causes the rotation on a horizontal axis, which, when deflected and tightened vertically by convective updrafts, forms a vertical rotation that can cause condensation to form a funnel cloud.

Cold-air funnel clouds are a common sight along the Pacific Coast of the United States, particularly in the spring or fall.

On July 29, 2013, a cold-core funnel cloud touched down as an EF0 tornado in Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, causing extensive damage in the form of downed trees on a golf course. No advance weather watches or warnings were issued by Environment Canada, and the tornado was spawned from one of the few non-severe storm clouds moving through the area.

Other funnel clouds
Other funnel clouds include shear or "high based" funnels, which are ephemeral, small, and weak funnels associated with small cumulus clouds, often even those rooted aloft above the boundary or surface layer, and in "fair weather" conditions. Small funnel clouds, such as some occurring within vicinity of mountains, occur by unknown processes.

Shear funnels might also occur with weak transient circulations at the cloud base of thunderstorms. Mesoanticyclones, which accompany mesocyclones, often exhibit these funnel clouds. Brief funnels also are observed with some rear flank downdrafts (RFDs) (within inflow or outflow areas, and especially within inflow-outflow interchange areas as RFDs interact with mesocyclones or flanking line updrafts) and streamwise vorticity currents (SVCs) feeding into mesocyclones.

Although not considered a separate kind of funnel cloud, some funnel clouds form with mesovortices associated with squall lines, which also can become tornadoes but are often not visible as funnel clouds or tornadoes because they usually occur within obscuring precipitation. Other "fair weather" funnel clouds include horseshoe clouds which are a very transient phenomena associated with extremely weak vortices.

title: Funnel cloud


text:
Shophouse

A shophouse is a building type serving both as a residence and a commercial business. It is defined in dictionary as a building type found in Southeast Asia that is "a shop opening on to the pavement and also used as the owner's residence", and became a commonly used term since the 1950s. Variations of the shophouse may also be found in other parts of Asia; in Southern China, Hong Kong, and Macau, it is found in a building type known as Tong lau, and in towns and cities in Sri Lanka. They stand in a terraced house configuration, often fronted with arcades or colonnades, which present a unique townscape in Southeast Asia, Sri Lanka, and South China.

Design and features

 * Site and plan: Shophouses were a convenient design for urban settlers, providing both a residence and small business venue. Shophouses were often designed to be narrow and deep so that many businesses can be accommodated along a street. Each building's footprint was narrow in width and long in depth. The front area along the street was formal space for customers, while the rear areas were informal spaces for family members, toilets, bathrooms, kitchens, and infrastructure.
 * Veranda: Merchandise was displayed in front of the house, and was protected by a veranda from rain and sunshine. The veranda also served as reception for customers. The veranda along the street was an important area for the house owner and customers. Unless there was a communal arrangement, verandas may not connected to each other to form continuous colonnades. Where the colonnades are present by design, they form the five foot way.
 * Courtyard and upper floor: Traditional shophouses may have between one and three floors. The shophouse was usually built between parallel masonry party walls. The upper part of the house was used as living quarters. To ensure air circulation, an inner "courtyard" (air-well) was placed midway between the front and rear of the house.

Covered walkways
In 1822, instructions were issued by Sir Stamford Raffles for the Town Plan of Singapore which specified that each house had to provide a "verandah of a certain depth, open at all times as a continued and covered passage on each side of the street". Raffles' instructions created a regular and uniform townscape in Singapore with arcades or colonnades forming a continuous public pathways. Later in other Straits Settlements, the "continued covered passage" known as "five foot way" was also mandated, and it became a distinctive feature of the "Strait Settlement Style" buildings. This feature also spread to other South East Asian countries after the mid-19th century such as Thailand and the Philippines, as well as some East Asian countries.

Covered walkways are found in a building type called qilou found in Southern China, Taiwan and Hong Kong that was developed under the influence of Singaporean shophouses. In Taipei at the end of the Qing dynasty period, Taiwan under the Taiwan under Japanese rule, and in Southern China under the Republic of China, similar regulations were applied, mandating a wider space. In 1876, the Hong Kong colonial authority allowed the lease holder to build overhangs above the verandah (public sidewalk in Hong Kong colony) to provide more living space with no intention of creating regular and uniform townscapes.

Facade design
The facades of the building and sometimes the pillars may be decorated. The facade ornamentation draws inspiration from the Chinese, European, and Malay traditions, but with the European elements dominant. European neo-classical motifs include egg-and-dart moldings, and Ionic or Corinthian capitals on decorative pilasters. The degree of a shophouse's ornamentation depended on the prosperity of its owner and the surrounding area; shophouse facades in cities and (former) boom towns are generally more elaborate than spartan rural shophouses.

Masonry-heavy Art Deco and Streamline Moderne styles eventually prevailed between the 1930s and 1950s. Modern variations through the 1950s up to the 1980s were devoid of ornamental decorations, and tended to be designed with imposing geometrical and utilitarian forms inspired by International and Brutalist styles. Beginning in the 1990s, buildings began to adopt postmodern and revival styles.

Function
The front of the shop on the ground floor in most cases is used for commercial purposes, while the upper floors are intended for residential use. The ground floor may serve as food and drink shops, offices, shops, or workshops. If the ground floor include living spaces (usually located at the back), it may be used as reception, guestrooms, and formal family rooms with ancestor altars. As the settlement prospered and population increased, some front shops were put to professional uses such as clinics, drugstores, law offices, pawnshops, travel agencies. Food and drink shops usually served economical selections, such as a variety of ready-cooked food of Chinese style, Padang style (Halal), or Siamese style. Cooking stalls rented a portion of space from the shop owner and served specific food such as fried noodles, fried rice, Indian pancakes, noodle soup. A variety of drinks was served by a different stall, sometimes by the shop owner. Such stalls have been replaced by food courts.

Street corners were prized as the best location for food and drink shops.

Modern construction
Modern shophouses are made of reinforced concrete. Loads are carried by beams and piers, built on a grid system. The spacing of the piers is determined by economic factors: wider beams require larger amounts of steel. A plot of land that measures 40 m wide and 12 m deep, could be used to create 10 shophouses, each measuring 4 m x 12 m, or eight shophouses measuring 5 m x 12 m, or something in between.

Walls are infill, which means that a row of shophouses can easily be reconfigured, to allow a business to occupy two or more shophouses, by simply removing the dividing walls.

A row of shophouses can be built in stages by exposing around 50–60 cm of rebar in the left-right beams at each end of the row. When continuing construction, new rebar is tied to the existing rebar to allow the beam to be continued, thereby removing the need for new structural piers.

Singapore shophouses
The shophouses of Singapore evolved from the early-19th century during the colonial era. It was first introduced by Stamford Raffles who specified in his Town Plan for Singapore the uniformity and regularity of the building, the material used as well as features of the buildings such as a covered passageway. After the colonial era, shophouses became old and dilapidated, leading to a fraction of them abandoned or razed (by demolition work or, on occasion, fire).

In Singapore, the Land Acquisition Act for urban development, passed during the early-1960s and amended in 1973, affected owners of shophouses and worked a significant compensatory unfairness upon them when their shophouses were seized to satisfy redevelopment efforts. Over the decades, entire blocks of historical shophouses in the urban centre were leveled for high-density developments or governmental facilities.

Owners and occupants of colonial shophouses in Malaysia underwent different experiences involving a series of rent control legislation put in place between 1956 and 1966. Under the most recent 1966 Control of Rent Act, privately owned buildings constructed before 1948, including scores of shophouses, were subjected to rent price controls to alleviate housing shortages, with the intent of providing the increasingly urbanised population with sufficient affordable housing. In the decades following the introduction of the act in 1966, development of sites that the shophouses rest on were often unprofitable due to poor rental takings, leading to historical urban districts stagnating but being effectively preserved, although entire blocks of shophouses were known to be demolished for a variety of reasons during the upsurge of the economy (from government acquisitions to destruction from fires). With the repeal of the act in 1997, landowners were eventually granted authority to determine rent levels and be enticed to develop or sell off pre-1948 shophouses; as a result, poorer tenants were priced out and many of the buildings were extensively altered or demolished for redevelopment over the course of the 2000s and 2010s. Shophouses have also been documented to be illegally sealed for use to cultivate and harvest edible bird's nests, leading to long-term internal damage of the buildings.

Many shophouses in Singapore that escaped the effects of the Land Acquisition Act have now undergone a revival of sorts, with some restored and renovated as budget hotels, tea houses, and cinemas. Some shophouses are now considered architectural landmarks and have substantially increased in value. In 2011 in Singapore, two of every three shophouse units sold for between S$1.7–5.5 million (US$1.4–4.4 million), while larger units sold for between S$10–12.5 million (US$8–10 million), a sharp increase from 2010, while average per-square-foot prices increased 21% from 2010. The median price in Singapore in 2011 was 74% higher than in 2007.

Heritage shophouses in Malaysia
While the preservation of historic shophouses has suffered substantially in heavily developed states like Johor, Kuala Lumpur, Negeri Sembilan, Perak, and Selangor, shophouses in Malacca and Penang (which state capitals, Malacca Town and George Town, have been gazetted as UNESCO World Heritage Sites in 2008) received more care and attention due to emerging historical preservation movements in both states, experiencing similar levels of rejuvenation as in Singapore. However, the gentrification of both cities has led to older tenants of shophouses being driven out by the rising costs of renting or buying properties within historical districts. In 2012, the cost of buying a pre-World War II shophouse in George Town reached RM2,000 per square foot (US$660), equivalent to the price of the most expensive Kuala Lumpur city centre condominium units.

Indonesian shophouses
Shophouses have been very popular since the Dutch colonial period, particularly in pecinan ('Chinese quarter'). Traditional shophouses are now replaced by modern ones, called ruko (rumah toko).

title: Shophouse


text:
Talk:States of Sudan

Useful links

 * http://www.statoids.com/usd.html for list of states in both Arabic and English version
 * AllRefer Sudan Political Geography Articles

Naming
why wilaya is translated as state and not as province like for other arab countries? Tobias Conradi 20:02, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * The official government site uses "states", so it is correct. Also English googling returns 8000 hits for "wilaya state" but only 739 for "wilaya province" so "state" appears to be the more widely used translation. -  Banyan Tree  20:28, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

thx for gov.sd - but why have they done this? BTW even government translations can be uncorrect, my english-googling

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=lang_en&q=%22wilaya+province%22 = 272 http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=lang_en&q=%22wilaya+state%22 = 187

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=lang_en&q=%22province+province%22 = 88 http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=lang_en&q=%22province+province%22 = 37

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=lang_en&q=wilaya+province = 3640 http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=lang_en&q=wilaya+state = 8540 Tobias Conradi 20:54, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * I've responded on Talk:Provinces of Mongolia. The same term in another language doesn't have to be translated as the same term in English. -- ran (talk) 21:10, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)

state border question
Searching around the internet, I have found some contradicting map sources regarding the border between Kassala and Al Qadarif states. Some say Al Fushqa district is entirely within one state or the other and at least one says that it is split between the two. Is there anyone familiar with this matter who can provide first-hand information? --Lasunncty (talk) 10:06, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Darfur states
Hello,

I have added maps for the new states in Darfur as found here on Commons. The maps show all disputes marked; this is done to be neutral. - Thanks, Hoshie 03:43, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

West Kordofan
According to Sudan Tribune the state of West Kordofan was reestablished. Aotearoa (talk) 08:16, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Grouping the States
I made a significant structural change, & thought I should explain myself. In an early version of the page, the then-current states were grouped by their correspondence with the larger provinces of British colonial times. Over time, these were groupings were replaced with other historical associations. The most recent version associated collections of states with historical kingdoms of renown. This is a great way to look at Sudanese history. However, given that the focus of this page is on administrative divisions, I don't think it's an appropriate way to organise the information. Furthermore, it was impossible to do accurately as these historical entities were not contemporary, and had a great deal of geographical overlap, nor did they have stable boundaries. I do think it would be entirely appropriate to add a new section explaining which states were within the realms of which historical polities at particular times. I am not currently motivated to do this. Pathawi (talk) 14:57, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

title: Talk:States of Sudan


text:
User talk:Prisk

Welcome, Prisk. It would probably be better to put your comments in the appropriate "Talk" sections, say, in Jews by country, rather than my Talk page. That would make it easier for others to join in the discussion as well. Thanks for your comments, though. --Goodoldpolonius2 06:21, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:JPadilla.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:JPadilla.jpg. The image page currently doesn't specify who created the image, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created the image yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the image on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the image yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the image also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture then you can use GFDL to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the image qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other images, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of image pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, contact Carnildo.

Image Tagging Image:Harithi.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Harithi.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use GFDL to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. —Wknight94 (talk) 00:39, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

title: User talk:Prisk


text: User talk:67.85.246.68

title: User talk:67.85.246.68


title: File:Justiceleagueadventures01.jpg


text:
User:BaronLarf/Ron Nessen

Ron Nessen (born May 25 1934 was a press secretary for President Gerald Ford from 1974 to 1977.

Quotes
"Nobody believes the official spokesman . . . but everybody trusts an unidentified source."

Works

 * ISBN 0312855923
 * ISBN 0312855885
 * ISBN 031285594X
 * ISBN 0872235009 (It Sure Looks Different on the Inside, Playboy Press, 1978)

title: User:BaronLarf/Ron Nessen


text:
Talk:La Rochelle

Untitled
I believe the word blocus should be changed to blockade (as in naval).

Patfla (talk) 04:09, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

La Rochelle's bell
I received this fortune today, maybe somebody would like to incorporate it into the article:

In modern Europe, as in ancient Greece, it would seem that even inanimate objects have sometimes been punished for their misdeeds. After the revocation of the edict of Nantes, in 1685, the Protestant chapel at La Rochelle was condemned to be demolished, but the bell, perhaps out of regard for its value, was spared. However, to expiate the crime of having rung heretics to prayers, it was sentenced to be first whipped, and then buried and disinterred, by way of symbolizing its new birth at passing into Catholic hands. Thereafter it was catechized, and obliged to recant and promise that it would never again relapse into sin. Having made this ample and honourable amends, the bell was reconciled, baptized, and given, or rather sold, to the parish of St. Bartholomew. But when the governer sent in the bill for the bell to the parish authorities, they declined to settle it, alleging that the bell, as a recent convert to Catholicism, desired to take advantage of the law lately passed by the king, which allowed all new converts a delay of three years in paying their debts. [Sir James G. Frazer, "Folklore In The Old Testament"]

-- 91.11.241.200 (talk) 11:01, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Last French city to be liberated in WW2???
The claim that Rochelle was the last city liberated is dubious. It, like Saint-Nazaire and Dunkirk, is a commune. So the issue is (imho) what is the justification to call it a "city" in 1945 but not Dunkirk or St-Naz? This claim, it seems to me, rests on the exclusion of the two LATER liberated communes from being "cities" and need objective justification - and explanation. If the editors CAN justify the claim, then the FACT that both Dunkirk and Saint-Nazaire were still German-occupied on May 7-8, 1945 should be mentioned so as not to mislead.98.21.68.176 (talk) 12:34, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:La Rochelle


text:
PSA International

PSA International Pte Ltd, formerly the Port of Singapore Authority, is a port operator and supply chain company, with flagship operations in Singapore and Antwerp. One of the largest port operators in the world, PSA has terminals across 26 countries, including deepsea, rail and inland facilities. PSA is also involved in distripark and marine services.

History
Under the 1912 Straits Settlements Port Ordinance, the Singapore Harbour Board was formed on 1 July 1913. On 1 April 1964, the Port of Singapore Authority came into being under the 1963 Port of Singapore Authority Ordinance to replace the Singapore Harbour Board and several organisations that have been operating in the port.

In the 1970s, PSA started building a container port in Singapore, and in 1972, handled their first container ship. A decade later, they reached the milestone of one-million-TEU of number of containers processed. They later reached the 5 million TEU mark by 1990, making Singapore the world’s largest container port at the time. The company became a global operator after it first started its global expansion in 1966 through port interests in Dalian, China.

A parliamentary bill was passed on 25 August 1997, to turn the Port of Singapore Authority, a state organisation into an independent commercial company. PSA Corporation Limited was thus corporatised on 1 October 1997. The company kept the initials “PSA” as its brand name but it is no longer an acronym. The regulatory functions of the former authority were transferred to Singapore's new maritime regulator, the Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore (MPA).

In order to focus on its core port business, PSA Corporation set up The HarbourFront Limited (present day Mapletree) on 7 December 2000, to spearhead development of its properties.

Following a restructuring exercise in December 2003, PSA International Pte Ltd became the holding company for the PSA Group of companies.

In March 2022, it was announced by PSA International and Halifax Port Authority that PSA has acquired the Fairview Cove Container Terminal (Ceres Halifax Inc.) from Nippon Yusen Kabushiki Kaisha.

PSA Marine
PSA Marine Pte Ltd, a wholly owned subsidiary of PSA International, provides marine services to the maritime and shipping community. They include pilotage and port and terminal towage. PSA Marine owns and operates a fleet of over 80 vessels in Singapore, Malaysia, Hong Kong, mainland China, India, Australia, Panama, Peru and Oman.

title: PSA International


text:
The Man Who Had All the Luck

The Man Who Had All the Luck is a play by Arthur Miller, his second major play (after No Villain).

The Man Who Had All the Luck follows protagonist David Beeves’ existential exploration into the enigmatic question of how fate and the human will interact with each other. The play takes on a fantastical, parable-like architecture in its plot construction and character development as it follows Beeves into three and a half of the luckiest years of his life. The story begins during an evening in April at an undisclosed Midwestern town, evoking a feel of nostalgia and Americana in the process.

The Man Who Had All the Luck failed on Broadway, lasting only four performances. Afterwards, Miller wrote All My Sons as a final attempt at writing a commercially successful play; he had vowed to "find some other line of work" if the play did not find an audience.

Plot
David Beeves is a young Midwestern automobile mechanic, who discovers he is blessed with what appears to be almost supernatural good fortune that allows him to overcome every seemingly insurmountable obstacle that crosses his path, while those around him fall in defeat. Like Midas, everything he touches is tinged with gold, leaving him to wonder if and when his luck will change, and he, too, will be forced to deal with life's tragedies, until he eventually realizes that his good heart, hard work, and quick thought have been responsible for his success far more than luck.

David Beeves works as a self-taught auto mechanic in a barn that doubles as a repair station, where the entire first act takes place. The scene unfolds as David tells J.B., a local shop owner, that he plans to confront his girlfriend Hester’s father about their intention to marry. This, of course, is not as easy as it seems; her father, Andrew Falk, has resented David for over seven years and still controls every aspect of Hester’s life. After receiving conflicting advice on how to mediate the situation from J.B., Hester, his father Pat, and Shory (a disabled veteran who manages the feed and grain store adjacent to the barn), a rich farm owner named Dan Dibble brings his Marmon over for repair after a competing mechanic informs him that the engine will have to be taken apart. J.B. then notes to David in secrecy that getting the Marmon to run properly might cement his place in the tractor business, despite David’s lack of prowess in tractor repair. David agrees to the job with brisk charm, though is filled with doubt about his ability to diagnose the Marmon properly.

Shortly thereafter, Mr. Falk arrives in a bitter frustration, ordering Hester to return home and confronting David Beeves directly. David, restraining himself from rash emotion and violence, bluntly tells Falk that Hester and he are marrying. Falk subsequently threatens to kill Beeves if he sees him again, and pushes his stalled car away. Only moments later, Dan Dibble returns with Hester, admitting in a stunned confession that he accidentally hit and killed her father with the front of his vehicle. David, feeling an ambivalent combination of sympathy for Hester, elation now that his obstacles have been removed, and a skeptical notion that what just happened was unreal, stays in the barn to work on the Marmon. As time presses on, Beeves gets progressively more tired and frustrated with his incompetence in diagnosing the Marmon’s mechanical issues. At the brink of his exhaustion, an Austrian mechanic named Gus enters the barn and offers to fix the Marmon at no charge while David rests. When he awakes in the morning, Gus has disappeared and Dibble has returned. Assuming that David was the one who repaired the automobile, Dibble promises to bring all of his tractors that need work done to David in the future, and guarantees the forming of other business connections along the way. In utter disbelief of his luck, David is unable to accept the money for restoring the Marmon.

The play resumes following a three-year lapse at the farmhouse David and Hester have inherited after Andrew Falk’s death. David’s close friends and family have gathered at the house, eagerly awaiting his brother Amos’s baseball game. Pat is later revealed to have received a telegram from Augie Belfast, a talent scout for the Detroit Tigers, notifying the family that he will be watching the game tonight specifically for Amos. After they return from the game, the crowd awaits Belfast’s arrival and the verdict on whether Amos has the skill to be drafted into the major league at the Beeves’ residence. During this brief interim, David decides to invest in a mink farm at the persuasion of Dan Dibble. Spirits are high within the group initially, but as time passes without any sign of Belfast, Beeves starts to doubt the value of man’s hard work and determination. When the man ultimately does show, he lauds Amos’s talent as a pitcher, but remarks that when the bases are loaded, he becomes panicky because he has been used to practicing in the cellar throughout his life. He leaves the house unwilling to make any sort of deal with Amos. Resentful and humiliated, Amos vows never to play baseball again, blames his father for his misfortunes, and discloses his envious feelings toward David’s fulfillment in life. Beeves tells him he is not fulfilled in life because of his perceived inability to have children, which spurs Hester to unexpectedly reveal that she is having a child.

Several months pass, and Hester has begun to enter labor as David, J.B., Shory, and Gus wait downstairs for the child to be born. Beeves tries to convince Gus to take over 60% of his business ventures so he can raise enough money to purchase more mink. Gus refuses on the basis that David could lose everything he owns if his mink perish, to which he replies that he has already mortgaged most of his assets. As things escalate into quarrel, David divulges that Hester has fallen and that the child could be delivered as a stillbirth or deformed. David is convinced that this catastrophe is his final payment for all of the luck that has pursued him throughout his recent life. Ironically, the child is born a healthy boy, and David continues to feel ashamed and guilty about his prosperity. A month later, Gus and Hester learn that Dan Dibble’s mink have all died after consuming contaminated feed; David uses the same feed for his own mink. Both decide to hold off on telling him; Gus fears that his psychological and emotional stability might come into jeopardy, and Hester believes that such a loss would eventually make him happy in the long run. Dibble eventually calls the house and informs David, who begins to chastise Hester. She makes the decision to leave him, the reasoning behind this misconstrued by David as Gus having an affair with his wife. Just as things come to an emotional climax, Dibble arrives and assuages their fears. David and he both realize that the careful monitoring of the feed has saved his mink. David has an epiphany after Gus points out that only Beeves’ hard work and meticulous caregiving could have saved the mink, not luck. He then departs. Hester asks David to come up for bed, and as thunder roars in the distance, he stares out the window with apprehension.

Analysis
Christopher Bigsby states that this is a study of human freedom. Beyond offering an account of a man's decline into madness, and eventual redemption, it explores the degree to which many of the characters become complicit in their own irrelevance, the degree to which they collude in the idea of man as a victim, as a subject of cosmic ironies."

Production history
The Man Who Had All The Luck originated as an unpublished novel manuscript, completed in 1943; Miller adapted it for the theater the following year and it became his first play to be staged on Broadway. Directed by Joseph Fields, it opened on November 23, 1944, at the Forrest Theatre, where it ran for only four performances. Karl Swenson starred as David Beeves.

The play's failure nearly derailed Miller's career, and it remained one of his least-known works until 1990, when the Bristol Old Vic staged The Man Who Had All The Luck with Iain Glen in the lead role. The production was directed by Paul Unwin. It later transferred to the Young Vic in London. In 2000, director Dan Fields mounted a production that ran for seven weeks at the Ivy Substation theater in Culver City, California. The following year, a production was staged by the Williamstown Theatre Festival, which had presented the American premiere of Miller's The Ride Down Mt. Morgan.

After 15 previews, a Broadway revival directed by Scott Ellis opened on May 1, 2002, at the American Airlines Theatre, where it ran for 62 performances. The cast included Chris O'Donnell as David Beeves, with Samantha Mathis, Mason Adams, James Rebhorn, Richard Riehle, David Wohl, and Sam Robards, whose performance garnered him Tony and Drama Desk Award nominations for Best Featured Actor in a Play.

In 2006, Ellis was announced to be directing a feature-film adaptation of the play.

The play was revived at the Donmar Warehouse, London, in March 2008 in a production by Sean Holmes.

On 25 September 2012, a UK-wide tour by Sell A Door Theatre Company, in association with Mull Theatre, started. The tour is directed by David Hutchinson and designed by Richard Evans. The tour took in the UK from Orkney Arts Theatre to Greenwich Theatre, London.

title: The Man Who Had All the Luck


text:
Sillar

Sillar is a variety of rhyolite, which is a type of volcanic rock. Although sillar is of rhyolitic composition, it has been erupted from volcanoes which mostly erupt andesite lava, and sillar contains small fragments of andesite. A pink variety of sillar owes its colour to crystals of hematite within the rock. A white variety lacks these hematite crystals. Sillar is found as pyroclastic flow deposits of tuff near volcanoes in southern Peru, for example the now-extinct Chachani volcano which erupted flows of sillar during the Pleistocene epoch.

Sillar facies Orvieto-Bagnoregio Ignimbrite (black blocks of scoria in red tuff) occurs at Civita di Bagnoregio in the Vulsini volcanic district of central Italy.

Building stone
Sillar has been used as a building stone in Peru. Many colonial buildings in the city of Arequipa are made of sillar, for example, the arches of the "Mirador of Yanahuara" in Arequipa, from which the entire city can be viewed.

title: Sillar


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Creation geology

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. 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 NO CONSENSUS.

The votes were 9 keep, 4 merge, 10 delete. dbenbenn | talk 18:07, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Creation geology
This page is essentially a repost of material from the previously deleted page Views of Creationists and mainstream scientists compared. User:Ungtss took most of the material directly from there and simply reposted it in this section. We should be avoiding reposting deleted material. The article as it stands right now reads like a creationist screed and should be deleted. Joshuaschroeder 06:33, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, not a screed. It describes creation geology claims in a tone appropriate for an encyclopedia. Gazpacho 07:25, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * or, merge to Flood geology and optionally rename that article to something more encompassing. I enjoy debunking creationism in any forum where it's appropriate; I also fully agree with Philip's comments below. As I said in two previous creationism-related nominations, having an article is not an endorsement. And Megan, no personal attacks, please. Gazpacho 10:01, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete.  It presents personal opinions as facts.   There may be questions or uncertainties about some of the geological tests but that does  not, in any way, validate the alterantive explanation.  The arguments for Creationism  should stand or fall on their own merits.  Weaknesses in the arguments for Physical or Evolutionary Geology do not validate Creationist Geology.   Furthermore the failiure to apply the same rigorous debate to theories of Creationist Geology can only serve to bring discredit upon the theory.   ping 07:39, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * "presents personal opinions as facts" is a basis for cleanup rather than deletion, although I don't see the article doing that. Furthermore, Wikipedia's goal is to describe, not to find truth. See the "Pseudoscience" section of NPOV. Gazpacho
 * Delete, reads like screed to me. Wyss 11:18, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm just not seeing what makes this more of a "screed," and less appropriate, than e.g. Dianetics, Ayurveda. Gazpacho
 * They're a bit screedy as well, aren't they? Wyss 18:34, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Keep. creation geology is creation geology.  if it reads like screed, fix it.  but it's encyclopedic, and addresses the issues i think.  it's not a repost -- it contains a lot of new information, and some old.  PLEASE follow the VOTES FOR DELETION POLICY and only vote for deletion if it meets one of the criteria -- this doesn't meet any of the criteria, except "we don't like it."   "We don't like it" is insufficient to delete.  we fix that by EDITING.  Ungtss 13:56, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. It is an encyclopedic rendering of a possible interperetation of the facts.  I would support someone adding a criticisms section if they are concerned that the current rendering is not NPOV enough, but the topic itself is sound regardless of the fact that many people on Wikipedia disagree with the points being discussed.  They do represent a distinct and real interperetation that has been posed by various groups, and so this does legitimately warrant a topic to discuss these views. -- EmperorBMA|話す 14:21, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. It isn't really a repost of the deleted article.   For one thing, I think it has existed for a while.  However, it is still true that there is very little, if anything, in this article that is not a recap of the same basic creationist arguments to be found in such articles as Creationism and Creation science. If there is something which isn't duplicated elsewhere, that little bit could easily be moved elsewhere.    The sections that relate specifically to geology are recaps of the arguments in Flood geology, or arguments about dating techniques which overlap Radiometric dating and Young Earth creationism.   Creationism being a notable view, albeit far from mainstream, Wikipedia obviously must cover it.  But how many different articles should there be, all pushing basically the same pseudoscientific arguments?   Do editors trying to maintain NPOV have to play whack-a-mole in numerous different articles related to creationism?  --BM 15:16, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * i disagree. this page has minimal overlap.  creationist views on radiometric dating are covered NOWHERE else, and neither is the material on the antediluvian earth -- this page contains material covered NOWHERE else -- where would suggest we put it?  as to whackamole, yes, that's what this is.  except we moles aren't giving up:).  Ungtss 17:29, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * What's wrong with them going in Flood geology?Joshuaschroeder 20:35, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * they're not about the flood. Ungtss 01:08, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Delete. I agree with BM. There's obviously a place for this type of information on Wikipedia, but there are plenty of other articles where this same pseudoscience is covered, like Creation science. It's fine to have an article about Chakras for instance, but we don't need separate ones for Heart chakra and Root chakra et al. Katefan0 15:44, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete: And redirect to flood geology (I change my vote). 16:07, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * User:Bensaccount did the five-tilde-typo . dbenbenn | talk 18:00, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * There's already a Flood geology page. This page doesn't cover more than this. Joshuaschroeder 20:33, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Delete Offers nothing that isn't covered elsewhere, is insufficiently NPoV, and recycles material earlier successfully VfDed. Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 22:09, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, geology is a science, creationism is not. The name of the article is therefore an attempt to mislead. Megan1967 01:20, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. I was tempted to vote delete on the grounds that it could be combined with the Flood geology article, but the latter is already fairly large and this article does cover different material than the Flood geology article.  In any case, if they were to be combined, it would probably be best under the title of this article.
 * On another note, I again see that a number of people here are voting to delete purely or partly because of their personal POV on the topic (for example, Megan1967, the entry just above this). That such people can't see how much their biases get in the way of NPOV causes me to despair that Wikipedia will never achieve its goal of truly presenting a neutral point of view.  As with writing articles, voters should vote on whether the article is suitable for an encyclopedia, not on the basis of their personal POV, no matter how common that POV may be.  Philip J. Rayment 06:09, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Are you claiming that creationism is a science? Science relies on testability of proof. Creationism relies on the written words of the Bible, a book with a religious POV. Faith is not science. You can't ignore the facts. It has nothing to do with claims of my POV. Of course being a christian yourself Philip wouldn't have anything to do with your position now would it.Megan1967 06:50, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Are you claiming that your POV is undisputed fact? Because it isn't.  It doesn't matter what I claim.  Creationary scientists do claim that it is as scientific as uniformitarian views, and, although getting it's framework from the Bible, is also based on hard scientific evidence.  Those are the facts.  Your implied claim that it indisputably not science is simply not true.  You may (hypothetically) be right that it is not science, but that is disputed by very many people, including many scientists, so you are, as I said, basing your vote on your POV.  Philip J. Rayment 03:04, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Sign your posts next time Philip. Creationism is not based on "hard scientific evidence". Creationism is based on the writings of the Bible - that is not science, that is faith. I would seriously challenge your statement that "many scientists" support creationism as science. Research does not back up your claim. For example - "Out of the approximately 13,000,000 scientists and engineers in the US alone, less than 5% (some 600,000) are creationists, according to Gallup poll results. However, this number includes those working in fields not related to life origins (such as computer scientists, mechanical engineers, etc.). Taking into account only those working in the relevant fields of earth and life sciences, there are about 480,000 scientists, but only about 700 believe in "creation-science" or consider it a valid theory [Robinson, 1995]. This means that less than 0.15% of relevant scientists believe in creationism. And that's just the US, which has more creationists than any other industrialized country. In other countries, the number of relevant scientists who accept creationism drops to less than one tenth of 1%." see . 0.15% does not equate to "many" Megan1967 07:58, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I normally do sign my posts (and I have now signed that one). But to get to the point, you are still ignoring that it is a POV that you are using to justify a deletion.  Do you dispute that others claim that creationism is based on hard scientific evidence?  I don't know why I'm asking—I asked last time and you ignored the question in favour of arguing your POV again.  Personally, I would consider even your attempt-to-minimise 700 scientists to be "many" in the sense that it is a non-trivial number. Philip J. Rayment 15:19, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * And if you think that creationism is not POV, you are sadly mistaken. Creationism takes the view from a religious point, there is nothing scientific about that. You still haven't provided any evidence that creationism is more popular than evolutionary science except from your own POV. Any number provided by any survey wouldn't satisfy you. Megan1967 03:37, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * What makes you think that I think that creationism is not POV? I'm saying that evolution is also POV, and that you are therefore voting to delete because it doesn't agree with your POV, which is not a valid reason to delete.  It is also your opinion that there is nothing scientific about creation.  Others disagree.  I never claimed that creationism is more popular (although I think that argument can be made with qualifications).  Where did you get the idea I was claiming that?  Philip J. Rayment 14:28, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I couldn't agree more. It's not PoV to point out that Creationism isn't a science; the only people who think that it is are the creationists themselves, just as the only people who think that phrenology or Marxism are scientific are phrenologists and Marxists — and that's not enough to make it an open question. Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 10:18, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * The only people that think evolution is the only correct view are evolutionists. What does that prove?  Philip J. Rayment 03:04, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * And many people once thought that the earth was flat, was created in seven days and was the centre of the solar system, but that still did not make it true. Megan1967 08:17, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Ignoring that the "flat earth" belief was mainly fiction, you are correct. Many people now think that evolution is true, but that does not make it so.  Philip J. Rayment 15:19, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Do you believe that the earth is flat? Then your arguments are not based on science. At least you have changed your arguments from "few" believe to "many" believe. I believe that is a concession on your part. Megan1967 03:37, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * No, I don't believe that the Earth is flat? Why do you ask?  I haven't changed my arguments (and therefore haven't conceded anything).  What makes you think that I ever denied that many believed in evolution?  Philip J. Rayment 14:28, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * The first paragraph makes it clear that it's considered pseudoscience. what else do you want?  the fact is, it EXISTS, just like phrenology.  but phrenology isn't up for deletion.  why are you voting to delete an article on a topic that exists, and which is flagged as pseudoscience in the intro?  Ungtss 13:15, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * If you agree that it is a pseudo-science then Creation Geology is misnamed as such. Creation Pseudogeology maybe. Whatever. Calling it Creation Geology is misleading. Megan1967 02:16, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Perhaps so, but that's what the creationists call it, so the naming convention guidelines are pretty clear that that's what the article ought to be called (if there's an article on it at all). For example, we have an article on the "true Catholic Church" called, yes, true Catholic Church, not because the article should in content or in tone approve of the claims of the subject of the article, but because that's the generally used (self- and otherwise) description.  Alai 02:58, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Creationists may call it that but that doesnt mean the majority call it that or that it is true and correct. Creation Science and Creation Geology are oxymorons. Megan1967 06:00, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * So you keep asserting, but NPOV is about not claiming something disputed to be true even if you think it is true. If it was, I would be claiming that creation is true, but I for one am prepared to attempt a neutral point of view.  Can you?  Philip J. Rayment 15:19, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * You are not neutral Philip. I've seen your profile page. It's quite obvious you are not neutral on this. So don't try and pull the wool over anyone's eyes because your public position on creationism is noted. Megan1967 03:37, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm not claiming to be neutral. I'm claiming that you are not neutral either, yet you are basing your vote to delete on your non-neutral POV, which is an invalid reason to vote to delete.  How about you address my points instead of attacking me?  My position on creationism is, as you say, public.  I don't shirk from that.  But that is not the point.  The point is that your position is also public, and you are invalidly basing your vote on your opinion.  How about actually addressing that point instead of stating the obvious about me as though it has some relevance to your invalid vote????  Philip J. Rayment 14:28, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * My vote isn't invalid. You can't make a persons vote invalid because you just so happen not to agree with it. Thank goodness creationists don't run democracies. This vote is on the Creation Geology article not anything else. Faith is not science - you keep asserting that's my POV, well according to Wikipedia articles on what faith is and what science is, I would say that to claim faith is equal to science is not correct, and thus my vote is perfectly valid. Allowing a misleading titled/named article to exist is un-encyclopaedic. Megan1967 01:59, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * My vote isn't invalid. I said that your reason for your vote is invalid.  You can't make a persons vote invalid because you just so happen not to agree with it.  But, according to you, disagreeing with the topic is reason for deletion?  That is the point that you are still not addressing.  Thank goodness creationists don't run democracies.  What makes you think they don't?  People that believed what the Bible says (i.e. what we would now call creationists) were quite involved with setting up modern democracy.  Without them we may not have democracy.  But now that you have raised that topic and I have responded, let's not go down that sidetrack. This vote is on the Creation Geology article not anything else.  Did I say it was?  No.  I was saying that your vote on that was for invalid reasons, and you keep on raising other issues instead of sticking to that.  Faith is not science - you keep asserting that's my POV...  No, I keep asserting that your POV is being invalidly used as justification for voting to delete an article about a different POV.  I'm not claiming that faith is science; where did you get that idea from?  I would say that to claim faith is equal to science is not correct, and thus my vote is perfectly valid.  That's a non-sequitur.  Allowing a misleading titled/named article to exist is un-encyclopaedic.  But it is merely a POV that it is a misleading title.  And even if it is, renaming should be the solution instead of deletion.  Philip J. Rayment 14:29, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * (my edit coincided with those below) I don't comb the encyclopedia for articles to delete; when one is proposed, and it's in my sphere of personal or professional interest, I look at it and vote accordingly. In so far as there's any inconsistency in this (and I don't think that there is any), it would apply to most people on most VfDs. Besides, it's slightly disingenuous to point to  the fact that we're told in the first paragraph that the subject is considered to be pseudoscience.  Would an article describing at length the theory that all North Americans were intellectually and morally inferior to other nationalities, and accursed by god, be acceptable if it said at the beginning: “This theory is rejected by mainstream thought and considered to be groundless“?  A short description of a pseudo-scientific theory is one thing, but a full-length encyclopædia article whose only critical comment is one sentence at the beginning is another. Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 14:26, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * first, your comparison to north american inferiority is rather silly, since almost half the united states population ascribes to this idea, and the MAJORITY of people worldwide ascribe to it, so it's by no means a fringe view. Ungtss 15:17, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * That rather misses my point. Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 15:29, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Interesting you should give this hypothetical example, Κυριος Ετητης ;) In America in the 1910s and 20s, the leading evolutionary textbook taught practically the same thing (or specifically, white supremacy) — yet the ACLU went to court to fight for John Scopes' right to teach from this very book:

 * At the present time there exist upon the earth five races or varieties of man, each very different from the others in instincts, social customs, and, to an extent, in structure. These are the Ethiopian or negro type, originating in Africa; the Malay or brown race, from the islands of the Pacific; the American Indian; the Mongolian or yellow race, including the natives of China, Japan and the Eskimos; and finally, the highest type of all, the Caucasians, represented by the civilized white inhabitants of Europe and America.” (Hunter's Civic Biology pp. 195–196) 138.130.194.229 13:37, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm not quite sure why this would bear on the debate... particularly since modern science has basically discredited the idea that different ethnicitics are descended from different species of early man (and, therefore, has discredited the idea that certain races are inherently genetically inferior). Katefan0 14:55, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)

 * second, feel free to add the mainstream challenges to the creationist views at the end -- npov provides for that -- nay -- npov DEMANDS that -- but why are you voting to delete an encyclopedic entry describing a particular view of geology? Ungtss 15:17, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * You've ignored most of what I said (and the reason I gave for my vote). In short: a psudo-scientific theory pushed by a geographically restricted (if unfortunately politically powerful) group of religious fundamentalists might warrant a short article; it doesn't warrant one of this length and detail, especially when little mention is made of its status. Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 15:30, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * perhaps if your premises were correct, your conclusion would follow. but you of course ignore the entire religion of Islam, which ascribes to a young-earth interpretation of geological phenomena, including the flood.  geologically restricted?  hardly.  dominant in north america, south america, nearly universal in africa and the middle east, all the way through to Indonesia, and at least 5% in Australia.  Evolution is the geographically restricted fringe view -- a uniquely Western materialistic phenomenon.  Ungtss 18:26, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * As a religious belief, you're right; as a pseudo-scientific theory, presented as scientific (as it is in the article), you're wrong. And that's the point. Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 13:21, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * if religious belief and historical belief were separable in this case, you'd be right. but since this is above all a HISTORICAL belief about a deliberate act of creation, a garden built on a river, and a really big flood, you're wrong.  that's my point.  divorcing science from religion in this case is rather silly.  genesis is either historical or it isn't.  Ungtss 13:43, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Why are you conflating science with history? Even if I thought that Genesis was an historically accurate account of the beginning of the world, that wouldn't mean that I thought that creationism was scientific (it wouldn't even mean that I took Genesis to offer an explanation of the beginning of the world.  I wonder if you're aware of what distinguishes science from non-science and pseudoscience?  This isn't the place to go into it, but I'd be happy to discuss it somewhere appropriate. Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 13:55, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * i'm aware of how the contemporary scientific community defines science and pseudoscience, and that creationism falls within the latter category. of course, i find that definition to be unreasonably narrow, but that's beside the point.  the fact that creationism is pseudoscience doesn't change what it is -- and it is primarily a historical argument, based on an ostensibly historical account, and the subsequent interpretation of contemporary phenomena in light of that history.  to accept the account as historical is to interpret natural phenomena in light of it.  Ungtss 14:03, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, first, it's not just scientists who think of science in that way (many of them religious believers of a less literalist persuasion), but also philosophers of science (and many theologians). But, secondly and more importantly, what do you take the importance of science to be?  What distinguishes science from guessing, or choosing the most congenial theory, or just believing what you're told?  What's the relationship between the scientific method and justification?  Thirdly, and finally, how soon before we fall off the edge of this screen? Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 18:37, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * lol:). shall we continue here?

 * This vote isn't about whether Creationism is as a science, a pseudoscience, etc. This vote is about whether Creation geology warrants a separate article.  If there is enough encyclopedic material on Creation geology that is distinct from the material presented in numerous other articles about creationism, then it should have a separate article, whether Creation geology is science, pseudoscience, or utter kookiness.   I don't think there is enough such material, and the proliferation of articles related to creationism seems to be just a POV-motivated attempt to increase its presence in the Wikipedia and make it seem more like valid scientific view.  The proliferation of articles also complicates the task of editors who are trying to ensure that creationism is presented in an NPOV manner.    So the number of articles on creationism should be reduced, and this one seems like one of the first that can easily be dispensed with since the little material it contains that doesn't overlap other creationism articles can easily be merged with one or more of the others.  --BM 14:19, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm open to the idea since this ship looks like it's sinking. how do you suggest we do it?  Ungtss 14:23, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * My first take on this is to move the material on antideluvian geology and dating techniques to the "Creation geology" section in Creation science, keeping the link to Flood geology as a separate article. Creation science is currently only 9K in length, so there is plenty of room for expansion.   Indeed the Creation geology section of Creation science currently has a "sectstub" tag, calling for the section to be expanded; so this move would also permit that tag to be removed. --BM 16:02, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * That seems to me to be a very sound place to start. I must admit I share a lot of the concerns you raise.  There does seems to be at least a strong suggestion that there's a strategy here of "add creationist POV faster than it can be taken out/NPOV'd", so it's a bit rich for said advocates to cry "NPOV foul" when the removal of POV material is supported.  Nonetheless, there's no reason material on this topic shouldn't be here, provided it can be put in a NPOV context.  (By which I do not mean, 'we've written our creationist POV stuff, add some POV "evolutionist" material and it'll thereby be NPOV.')  Alai 18:16, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * let's put bizarre accusations of strategy to rest, shall we? this page was created to address issues unique to creation geology, and it is absolutely, without a doubt, best addressed here, because:
 * 1) it parallels other creation science pages
 * 2) putting it in creation science will make creation science ridiculously lopsided on one topic
 * 3) it doesn't do any HARM to have this page here -- it's not taking up any space that wouldn't be taken up on another page -- on the contrary, it covers unique material precisely on one topic.
 * now of course, those who wish to suppress any ideas other than those they consider to be rational will naturally delete this without justification (or pseudojustifications, like "this isn't science!" or "it's pov!" -- if that's the way it's gonna go down, then feel free to integrate this material anywhere you see fit. but don't fool yourself into thinking you're justified.  Ungtss 18:52, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Let's put the unwarranted level of hysteria to rest. I speak from experience, where I've attempted to resolve POV issues in particular articles (notably theistic realism and creation biology).  These articles appear with text with no reasonable claim to be NPOV;  there then follows endless edit wars and tangential debate on the talk pages, with the general effect of making removal of the POV as long-drawn-out as possible;  and then much the same set of authors move on to do the same thing in another page.  (Witness in the former case I'm still waiting for the restructuring you undertook to carry out, but you're still activity adding material to other pages.)  I'm not suggesting this is reason per se for deletion, but it's pretty frustrating to deal with.  (You'll notice I haven't even voted for the deletion of this page, so yelling "unjustified deletion!" at me is pretty, well, unjustified.)  And if it's not a 'strategy' it's certainly a 'pattern of behaviour'.  If these pages were really aiming at NPOV even in tone, never mind substance, would we really see such lavish use of POV neologisms like "creationary" and "evolutionist"?  Alai 19:52, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * keep or merge but don't delete, this concept needs to be covered somewhere. Kappa 23:31, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to flood geology. I personally think that creationism is a load of hooey, but that's not at issue here.   — Gwalla | Talk 00:10, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Take a deep breath and vote Keep, for even though it is utter nonsense, it is encyclopedic nonsense, and someone may need to read about it. Merging with flood geology is equally acceptable.  Antandrus 03:06, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, but needs much better NPOV. -Sean Curtin 01:56, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, Definitely keep. Encyclopedias should include as much information as possible, and whether the anti-creationists like it or not, there IS such a thing called creation geology -- whether it was spawned from creationists themselves is irrelevant. It exists and there should be info on it. Infocat 11:34, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, too less information and too much desinformation. Many facts are simply wrong. -- Moriolis 15:07, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to flood geology I think 2 articles on creationist 'geology' is duplication although it would fill-out 'flood geology' enough to make that one worth keeping. If Creation biology and Creation anthropology exist as articles Flood geology can as well but perhaps it should be renamed. If it is bias - delete bias bits/edit yerself max rspct 19:25, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge and Delete - merge the relevant information in the various creation science articles and delete. kaal 21:59, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Not easy to NPOV, but definately salvagable. Keep.  --L33tminion | (talk) 22:04, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. I notice too much censorship (outright heavy-handed deletion) of anything that comes from creationist or intelligent design sources without trying to deal with the issues.  I suspect that when people claim it is "wrong" they really mean it disagrees with naturalistic evolution. 138.130.194.229 12:20, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Please sign in if you wish your vote to be counted; IP addresses don't get to vote in VfDs.  Alai 16:23, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, yes they do. The usual view is that admins will usually assign less weight to an anon. user's vote.  Also important is contributions history; this user seems to have made over fifty edits before voting here. Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 15:31, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Hrm, the geat thing about WP policies (and practices) is there's so many of 'em... Someone probably needs to water down Template:Anon, then, which promises "The right to be heard in formal votes and elections, and on pages like votes for deletion", which is over-selling if they have that already.  Admittedly, Votes for deletion is weaker, merely saying "Anonymous and new users are welcome to contribute to the discussion, but their votes may be discounted, especially if they seem to be made in bad faith."  This could stand to be a whole lot clearer, though that's getting further from the point here.  (Though I may also have been to some extent confusing anon votes with unsigned one...)  Alai 17:18, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Not only that, but different admins have very different approches to how VfDs are decided: some simply count the votes, some assess the comments, and so on. All part of life's rich tapestry... Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 17:41, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Merge/Delete -Atricle is the usual pure BS spouted by creationists and DOES 'read like a screed'.--Deglr6328 21:45, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * i can't help but wonder when " pure BS" and "reads like a screed" came to be grounds for deletion. quite simply, they are not.  the article is encyclopedic because it describes an extant view.  whether it reads like screed or not is a function of editing, not deletion.  the above provides absolutely no justification for deletion, except distaste.  Ungtss 15:42, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Gamaliel 03:50, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, disinformation. Leanne 02:51, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Administrator, I ask that in deciding whether or not to delete this page, you consider the following facts:
 * absolutely none of the reasons presented for deletion qualify as justifications for deletion. On the contrary, they are reasons like "reads like a screed," "disinformation," and "Pure BS."  I suggest that these votes are instances of Systemic bias, rather than legitimate and npov votes for deletion.  Many people hate creationism just because it is creationism -- but that is NOT a reason to delete the page on the topic.  the page is encyclopedic, and covers a geniune extant topic.  the fact that it is WRONG does not justify DELETING it, as MANY ideas that are wrong appear on wikipedia.  The deletion of this page would be a violation of npov in the face of systemic bias.  Ungtss 14:09, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, this article essentially duplicates existing information which can be found on Creationism and Creation science. JamesBurns 05:46, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * that is absolutely, unequivocally untrue. there is absolutely no -- NO -- NO duplication.  this article is COMPLETELY unique.  Ungtss 16:48, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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