text:
Talk:Apothecaries' system

The mysterious numbers
What are those numbers after the nbsps in the table? We should either have a proper column for them, or zap 'em altogether. -- John Fader 01:08, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * In international style, groups of three numbers are often separated by spaces instead of commas, because in most countries the comma is used as the decimal point instead of the period: 1,234 can be misinterpreted as one and two hundred thirty-four thousandths instead of one thousand two hundred thirty-four. However, Wikipedia's style guide says to use a comma as a thousands separator, so I have edited the article to conform. Indefatigable 02:39, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * Personally I'd have nothing there (i.e. no space or comma) but the MoS trumps me, I guess. I was mostly confused because it was in a table, and I was worried that this was a mysterious fourth column that had become misplaced.  It's much clearer now; thanks for solving the mystery for me. -- John Fader 03:12, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Comma/decimals in numbers
I'm confused by the numbers -- in keeping with the rest of the site, numbers like 373.241,72 should be written as 373,241.72, shouldn't it? Or is the thousands separator actually being used in the decimal place, so the number really is 373241.72? It's a bit confusing.

 * In accordance with the manual of style, the article uses periods (full stops) as decimal points and commas as thousands separators -- an apothecaries' pound is about 373 g. Sorry, I don't see how it's confusing. Could you elaborate? Indefatigable 13:05, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

 * I can see where this question is coming from. In the US (and others), thousands are separated with commas and decimals are separated with dots. In Europe, the opposite is true. According to ISO 31-0, commas and dots should be reserved for decimals; spaces should be used to separate thousand groups. aszymanik   speak!  05:46, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, but I believe it's no longer relevant to this article. --Hans Adler (talk) 07:54, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Other Apothecaries' systems
It could be noted that the size of the unit varied by country, and was largely displaced by the Metric System in Europe. By "Muret Sanders enzyklopädisches Wörterbuch der Englischen und Reutschen Sprache" [1900] gives the units proportionally in ratio, the pounds being  350.78325 g Prussia, Meklenberg, Hanover, Saxony, Weimer (= 12/16 Prussian pound  357.6476 g In Wutenberg 357.6639 g in Kursland 357.8538 g in Nuremburg and a great part of Germany  360.0000 g in Baden and Lubeck  (based on metric units)  375.0000 g in Switzerland and Bavaria (based on 12/16 pound, pound = 500 g) 420.0450 g in Austria (12/16 Pfund; all their weight units are 6/5 of the Hansiatic pound)

In Russia, the pound was 8064 doli, or 7/8 of the funt, translates as 358.3236125 g.

Wendy.krieger 11:05, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

New version of the article
The article only dealt with the weight system in English speaking countries and the Imperial measure system in England (which was not the same as that in the US). It also ignored the history of the system. I corrected these things in my sandbox, and got a bit carried away. The result is essentially a comprehensive new article. I hope it's comprehensible in spite of the wealth of information,. --Hans Adler (talk) 14:15, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

On keeping a consistent SI writing style
Please note what the SI system page says about writing style; SI unit symbols are written in upright Roman so as to differentiate from variables. On this page there are several instances of g and kg. As far as I can tell there is little risk of ambiguity between the legacy units and their SI definitions, so the SI symbols would be better written g and kg.

91.154.83.153 (talk) 07:08, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Instead of a peer review
I am not sure how proper it is for me to "peer review" my own work, so I am putting my thoughts here instead. --Hans Adler (talk) 22:29, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * There is a lack of inline citations. When I started writing this article I knew next to nothing about this subject, and I am sure that every single claim in this article can be sourced to one or more of the sources that appear as inline references elsewhere. The problem is to find out which, in each particular case. I guess that bringing the density of inline citations to FA level would take about half as long as writing the article did – which is a lot more than I am going to spend on such a boring task.
 * Apart from the book "Weights and Measures in Scotland", all sources I used are available online. Unfortunately I made (and had to make) heavy use of sources in German.
 * What I could not find, and what is therefore missing as a reference in the article, is anything like a general overview over the development of apothecaries' weights in Europe. I could not even find an overview over the history of European weights and measurements in general, or even just in a particular country. In order to talk about the topic I had to make decisions about what is important enough to be mentioned, and what is irrelevant.
 * I suspect that more is known about the early history, including the Salerno system and its relation to the Roman and Arabic systems. But I couldn't find this information.
 * When a scruple is divided into 20 grains, they are traditionally called barley grains; when into 24 grains they are traditionally called wheat grains. There is a widespread belief that this is related to the actual average (in whatever sense) weights of these plant grains, and that the carat is related to the actual average weight of a carob seed, to the extent that physical seeds were sometimes, perhaps even originally when the standard was defined, used to weigh things. There is no evidence that this is true, and I suspect it is as mythical as the idea that the unit called "the King's foot" changed when there was a new king. (IIRC this is close to R.D. Connor's opinion in "Weights and Measures in Scotland".) There is no clear evidence either way, so I left the discussion out. (This is of course more relevant to some other mass unit articles than to this article.)
 * I still consider submitting a version of this article to a scholarly journal, to solve the sourcing problems. :D

Is it a good article? My computer cannot show those signs. Only boxes. I think you should paste pictures of them, or I need to have the vocabulary of all the writing signs which may appear in wikipedia. 79.179.9.202 (talk) 15:32, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

 * I subbed the symbols. Both dram and minim were wrong. Just checked on IE, and they *still* can't display basic symbols! (Why does anybody use IE?) I'll add in the unicode template. — kwami (talk) 00:28, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

 * Thanks! Hans Adler 07:34, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Roman weights
Hallo everybody!

I translated this good article to russian. I think there are some mistakes (may be I`m wrong). What about mina, drachma and shekel in roman system of weights. I tried to find some sources, but there are no evidence about existence of mina, drachma and shekel in Ancient Rome. --Юрий Педаченко (talk) 10:07, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

 * Thanks! I am practically the exclusive author of this article. Since I am not an expert and this article is getting little attention, there is indeed reason to be careful. Since I didn't give a reference for the Roman weight system, I guess I simply took this from Ancient Roman units of measurement. It's entirely possible that some of the units don't belong there, either because they are not actually Roman, or because they were introduced into the Roman weight system at a much later date. I have done a quick search with Google Books and Google Scholar, and this is what I have found:
 * Mina
 * I remember reading many sources in my attempt to understand the mina and its relation to the Roman weight system a bit better. The mina of 16 ounces has an obvious attraction as a possible explanation for the pound of 16 ounces that existed in parallel to the pound of 12 ounces. However, while I have found some sources that describe this ("Attic") mina, I have also found many that describe various other minas, and it now appears to me that "mina" was basically just the Greek word for "pound".
 * Drachm
 * I think there can be no doubt that some Roman emperors issued drachma coins in some provinces (at least Egypt). Of course this does not imply that the drachm was part of the weight system in any meaningful way. It appears that in De Ponderibus et Mensuris (c. 1300) the dragma is said to have been defined as 1/9 ounce by the "ancients" and 1/8 ounce by the "moderns". That alone seems reason enough for caution.
 * Shekel/sicilicus
 * This appears to be a special case. The sicilicus is primarily a symbol representing the fraction 1/48, so it's natural that in a weight context it would represent 1/48 pound. This gives it a borderline status similar to the centimetre, which we can see either as a unit or as a fraction of a unit.
 * I am going to remove the mina and the sicilicius from the table, since they are dubious and not really referred to in the discussion anyway. The drachm is a bit more tricky. I will remove it now since at least the precise value (1/8 ounce or 1/9 ounce) is dubious. But since this is a key unit in the apothecaries' system, some more research and work on the article text is needed. Hans Adler 11:11, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I have difficulty finding relatively recent, reliable information about the Roman weight system, but it does appear that the drachm was added to it at some (possibly post-classical) stage. It would be good to know when that happened, though, and whether it went through a stage in which it was 1/9 ounce as in the Salerno system.
 * Again, thank you very much for your valuable comment, and please let me know about all remaining doubts you have about the article. Hans Adler 12:14, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

 * Thank you for your answer and for very good and interesting article. I found a lot of new information. In some days, or may be 1-2 weeks, I want to nominate russian translatian to good articles. Before I'll try find more information about russian system with such specific units as "zolotnik" (золотник), "lot" (лот) and "dolya" (доля). Than I`ll inform you about this information and may be it would be interesting for you to make a new section.
 * Sincerely yours --Юрий Педаченко (talk) 18:01, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

 * Absolutely! This sounds very promising. I would be particularly interested in the older systems and standards if there is still any information about them. Everything I could find out is from after the Nuremberg standard was introduced in Eastern Europe, but I don't even know when that happened.
 * Now I see that we have several relevant articles: Obsolete Russian units of measurement, zolotnik, lot (unit). They come with the usual problems of such articles (e.g.: the zolotnik was originally 1/96 funt, later 1/72 funt; but when did the change happen?) and lack of citations. Hans Adler 19:18, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I found some information about russian apothecaries` system. Due to Brockhaus and Efron Encyclopedic Dictionary Russian system based on Nuremberg standart. 1 ap. pound was equal to 358,323 g, 1 ounce - 29,86 g, 1 drachma - 3,732 g, 1 scruple - 1,244 g, 1 gran- 62,209 mg. In article dated on 1890 is written that on 1890 year only two hospitals took metrical system, all other used apothecaries system of weight. In another source I found that system was abolished by law in USSR only at 1 January 1927 year. Юрий Педаченко (talk) 16:33, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks! That's not what I hoped for but it is also very valuable information. In Apothecaries' system I have added a line for Russia and a sentence at the end of the section. Please keep me up to date about the Russian article. I can't read Russian, so I will not look at that article very often. Hans Adler 17:44, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

 * The russian pound (funt) is divided in the french fashion, into 96 zlotniks of 96 doli. If you line the russian and french systems together most of the names agree.  The lot is of course, german (the 1/2 oz unit).   The apothecaries weights are divided in the English way (to 5760 grains), but are set so that the apothecaries pound is 7/8 funt (or 28 lot).
 * Likewise, the zloty (gold) corresponds to a solidus or 1/6 oz. In the french system, it is also a coin-name "dennier". Wendy.krieger (talk) 10:00, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

font problem
Here's a curiosity: the symbols for pound (℔) and drachm (ℨ) seem to be missing from Lucida Grande boldface, so they appear in the body of the table but not its head. —Tamfang (talk) 20:10, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Symbols
The symbol for dram didn't look right (although it looked fine in edit mode) so I changed it, but only in the first table.

Bear in mind that I grew up with these symbols, so I think I know what they are supposed to look like.

Maybe this is a browser issue, but the symbol for dram should be in the same style as the ounce symbol. For example, the top stroke should be straight and horizontal. The next stroke should also be straight, but diagonal.

Apothecaries' symbols commonly found in medical recipes

Text Creation Partnership Character Entity List (on this website, do a search on dram.)

Zyxwv99 (talk) 21:16, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

 * It's hard to tell with the inconsistency between various fonts, but I think you are right. THanks. Hans Adler 21:35, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

To Do List

 * some discussion of pharmaceutical Latin (or apothecaries' Latin) -- at some point I'd like to write an article about it, but articles often get spun off from sections, so maybe it could start here.

Supplemental units:

 * gallon (congius), apothecaries' wine gallon etc.

 * tumblerful / coffeecupful - half-pint
 * teacupful - quarter-pint
 * cyathus (wineglass or wineglassfull) - 1/8 pint - I've added something about this to the article on wineglass

Before 1700
 * cochleare - spoon (1/2 fluid ounce)

After 1700
 * tablespoon and teaspoon (1/2 ounce and 1 dram respectively)
 * dessertspoon - 2 drams, part of a 3-spoon system with the two above-menioned
 * baby spoon and large spoon - part of a 5-spoon system

discussion of minim vs. drop

Zyxwv99 (talk) 03:23, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Recent addition doesn't look right
These two paragraphs just turned up under the heading Metrication in countries using the troy and avoirdupois systems

 * It should be noted that the fluid measure for the apothecaries is based on the ounce avoirdupois, including the avoirdupoise grain (of 1/480 avoirdupoise ounce). A drop or minim is then a fluid grain avoir.  In the expression that an avoirdupois pound is 7000 grains, the grains belong to a different system (troy), this is really a definition of a commercial weight in terms of a (different) jewelers weight.  The directly derived avoirdupoise grain went obsolete in the 19th century.

 * A late avoirdupois division of the pound is to 16 ounces, each of 16 drams, each of 30 grains av, the avoirdupois pound being 7680 grains av, or by definition, 7000 grains where 480 make the oz troy. In practice, the Irish proposal would bring the English measures in line with the German tradition, where the apothecares and avoirdupoise ounces were identical.

This doesn't look right. Zyxwv99 (talk) 02:57, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

To be more specific: "It should be noted that the fluid measure for the apothecaries is based on the ounce avoirdupois..." In the US system, fluid measures are based on the US gallon of 231 cubic inches, with 128 fluid ounces to the gallon. This is the same as the Queen Anne wine gallons, which was, in principle, supposed to be the volume occupied by 8 pounds avoirdupois of wine, although that would only work if the wine had a specific gravity of 0.958611419, in which case it would have to be brandy, not wine. In the UK, the imperial Apothecary measures were based on the imperial gallon, which was, in principle, the volume of 10 pounds (avoirdupois) of water, with 160 fluid ounces to the gallon.

"...including the avoirdupoise grain (of 1/480 avoirdupoise ounce)..." There are 437 1/2 grains in an ounce avoirdupois.

"A drop or minim is then a fluid grain avoir." This is actually pretty close, but not exact. Avoirdupois/Troy/Apothecaries' grain: 0.06479891 gram; US minim in cubic centimeter: 0.06161152; imperial minim in cc: 0.059162849. Zyxwv99 (talk) 04:04, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

 * It should be noted that I added these two paragraphs in relation to the table proposed Dublin system. Since at this time Dublin was in the UK, the gallons etc refer to the UK versions, not the US ones.  The quoted reference reveals that the Dublin system is in fact, water-weights based on the Imperial gallon.  One gets an ounce, divided into 8 (fluid) drachms, each of 60 minims (grains), reflecting the weights of the imperial units.   The suggestion made here is that a new apothecaries scale is being made by equating the oz to the avoirdupois oz.

 * When one sets the apothecaries pound to 12 oz avoirdupois, (which is what the Dublin system suggests), then the minim really is 1/480 oz = 1 grain.  On the other hand, we should address that the appellation of the grain as 'grain troy', suggests that other grains might exist, and that the 'troy' really does serve a purpose.

 * English weights come from a variety of markets that serve the import/export industries. The pound of King Offa, or of the tower, comes from 120 silver dirhams.  This was replaced in mint-weight by a new pound, based on the heavier gold dirhem, which comes through the gold markets at Troyes, is called 'troy weight': the troy pound being 128 silver dirhams.  The apothecaries weight is variable from place to place, is usually tied to some other system, usually the avoirdupois, but in the UK, the troy.

 * The avoirdupoise comes from the wool trade from italy. The pound was rounded from 6992 grains troy to 7000.  However, this is like saying the lb is 9955.5555 grains tower, it's an equality between two systems of weight, not a derivation.  The pound is divided into oz, of 16 drams, then into 30 of its own grains.  However, there is very little call for grain-size measures in avoirdupoise, so that unit fell out of use by 1800.  One does still find references to it, though. [It's in the 1903 English-German German-English dictionary produced by Muret-Sanders].

 * There is a diamond and pearl grain, of which 4 make the carat, and 606 make the troy grain. The carat by weight was first set to 205 mg in 1877, and then 200 mg about 1900.  Still, in both senses, a solidus = 24 carats (siliqua), each of 4 grains.

 * The ounce of the tower pound was divided into 20 dwt, each of 32 grains, (or 640 tower grains), but only equal to 450 grains troy.

 * We now turn to the non-sense of the US gallon etc. The theoretical value of the wine gallon is 216 cu in, which pretty much contains 10 of King Offa's (or tower) pounds, at the rate of 250 grains troy to the cu in.  The troy pound would 230.4 cu inches at this same scale, which is rounds to a cylinder 7 inches in diameter, and 6 inches high, which then rounds to 231 cu in.  More recent roundings is to 0.8331 gallons at 1820, and since 0.8331 of the modern gallon is the larger "Winchester wine gallon".   The usual water rating for the US gallon is 12 gallons = 100 lbs (which is 252.5252 gci).  Metric water, or s.g. = 1, is 252.891 gci.

Wendy.krieger (talk) 11:15, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

 * Thanks for the explanation. I'm beginning to follow your logic. The Dublin Pharmacopœia does indeed set out a system of apothecaries' weights and measures based on the avoirdupois pound and the imperial gallon, in which a fluid ounce is the volume of an ounce of water. In this new apothecaries' system, the ounce is divided as previously, into 8 drams of 3 scruples each, with 20 grains to a scruple, giving a total of 480 grains to the ounce. The fluid ounce is similarly divided, so that the new minim becomes essentially a fluid grain. However, there is no indication that the newly defined grain has anything to do with the avoirdupois weight system. To the contrary, it's a new invention: the Dublin apothecaries' grain. Prior to 1588 the avoirdupois system did not have a grain, the smallest unit being the "part" (later renamed dram) equal to 1/16 of an ounce. In 1588 the avoirdupois weight system acquired the troy grain (and, as you said, the pound got rounded up to 7000 grains). Since then, the troy grain has also been the grain avoirdupois. Zyxwv99 (talk) 15:09, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

 * I chased the entry in Muret Sanders (1903), back to Friedrich Noback's "Münz, Maß and Gewichtsbuch" (Liepzig, 1858) p409, (it gives by town the measures, this one's under "London".) where it gives :

 * Das pfund (Pound) hat 16 Unzen (Ounces) zu 16 Drachmen (Drams). Die Drachme wird auch 3 Skrupel (Scruples) à 10 Avoirdupois-Grän (Avoirdupois Grains) getheilt.  (the pound has 16 ounces to 16 drams.  The dram is also divided 3 scruples (to) 10 avoirdupois grains).  Note: the inclusion of french "à" suggests that the german is itself a translation of a more ancient source.

 * The trouble is that one really can't rely on legal definitions only: the rules of Roman measures apply, so defining a 'foot' of some town, also defines a proportional inch (1/12 ft) and mile (5000 ft), see eg "London mile" = 5000 london feet. An ounce, in the manner of apothecaries or troy, divides into 480 grains.  Wendy.krieger (talk) 07:19, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

 * You just confirmed what I suspected: original research. (see WP:NOR). Zyxwv99 (talk) 14:57, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I also saw this addition, found it extremely confusing and felt that it was probably wrong to a large extent. But I postponed dealing with it. The above discussion is also very confusing as it tries to deal with so many unrelated points simultaneously. I don't really like the term 'original research' in contexts where we are all just trying to find out the facts from the relatively sparse sources that we have and trying to explain them as well as possible. Maybe we can avoid it for the time being and just look for established facts and the best way to present them. Hans Adler 20:37, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * "Of the Dublin proposal shown above it that the (imperial) fluid measure for the apothecaries is based on the ounce avoirdupois, including the avoirdupoise grain (of 1/480 avoirdupoise ounce)."
 * I think this is mostly correct, although I would have put it differently and doubt that it is needed here at all. (1) The internal relations are on page xlvi of the 1850 Irish pharmacopoeia and do in fact work out as 1 fluid ounce = 8 x 3 x 20 minims = 480 minims. (2) The imperial gallon was originally defined as the volume of 10 pounds of distilled water under certain conditions and consists of 8 fluid pints, each of 20 fluid ounces. Thus a fluid ounce of water weighs 1/16 pound, i.e. an ounce. (3) However, the smaller subdivisions of the avoirdupois ounce had long ago started to follow a different logic than the apothecaries' system, making it misleading to refer to the old subdivisions in this context. The term "avoirdupois grain" nowadays is a synonym for "troy grain", whether it makes sense or not. (The fact that a rather superficial 19th century German source refers to avoirdupois grains is hardly conclusive. BTW, "à" is a perfectly standard German word in this context, though obviously of French origin.) (4) As the 1851 review explains, the 1850 Irish pharmacopoeia merely adopted the English and Scottish system, which we are already discussing in the first section. So this discussion seems a bit out of place. Hans Adler 20:37, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * "A drop or minim is then a fluid grain avoir."
 * Again, as the original, 'logical', avoirdupois grain is an anachronism, this appears more misleading than helpful. Hans Adler 20:37, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * "In the expression that an avoirdupois pound is 7000 grains, the grains belong to a different system (troy), this is really a definition of a commercial weight in terms of a (different) jewelers weight. "
 * Correct, but not really relevant. Hans Adler 20:37, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * "The directly derived avoirdupoise grain went obsolete in the 19th century."
 * I thought it became obsolete much earlier, but I can't immediately find good sources on this. Hans Adler 20:37, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * "A late avoirdupois division of the pound is to 16 ounces, each of 16 drams, each of 30 grains av, the avoirdupois pound being 7680 grains av, or by definition, 7000 grains where 480 make the oz troy."
 * An avoirdupois pound of 7680 grains is mentioned in this source, for example, which unfortunately seems to be as confused about the matter as it is old, making it unusable. I really don't think this discussion is helpful in this context at all, the avoirdupois pound is generally off-topic in this article, and we would need much better sources. (Which exist; I just don't have them with me now.) Hans Adler 20:37, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * "There was very little left to be measured in avoirdupois grains, so the unit fell out of use by 1800."
 * Makes sense, but would require a good source and the year 1800 seems a bit late. Hans Adler 20:37, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * "In practice, the Irish proposal would bring the English measures in line with the German tradition, where the apothecares and avoirdupoise ounces were identical."
 * Regarding the extremely varied "German tradition", this is basically wrong. If you replace German by Italian or Austrian it gets closer to the truth, although it would still be a problematic statement. Hans Adler 20:37, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

The pound of 7680 grains that Hans Adler refers to is from 1266 (350 grams, 5400 troy grains), which predates both the troy and avoirdupois weights. This is King Offa's or the tower pound, which divides to 12 ounces, of 20 pennyweight, of 32 grains, or 7680 grains in total. This is later replaced by a pound of 5760 grains troy (377 grams), and a pound of 16 such oz inadvertantly created by act, giving 7680 grains (497.665 grams). The avoirdupois pound here is claimed at 7000 gt or 453.6 g, but divided to 7680 grains avoirdupois. The Nobach reference gives this particular division.

The contention here is the Dublin system is based on an ounce, which 16 oz = 453.6 gm = 7000 grains troy, but having the North european apothecaries units. A pound, of 453.6 grains, divided into 16 oz, of 16 drams, of 3 scruples, of 10 grains is given in the reference i quoted, where the grain is called avoirdupois, is 59.062 mg.

Regarding "German tradition". The apothecaries scale, where derived locally, is mapped onto 12 ounces or 24 lot, of the handelmaß system (ie avoirdupois). Also the scruple is divided to 20, not 24 grains. Prussia, Austria, define theirs this way. BTW, i found à elsewhere, and now consider it a German idiomatic use.

Wendy.krieger (talk) 08:34, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

The reference to the avoirdupoise grain has been traced back to 1816 P. Kelly, "Metrology, or An exposotion of Weights and Measures" p85. (metrologyorexpos00kelluoft.pdf) "The (avoirdupois) dram is divided into three scruples, and each scruple into ten grains; the Pound or 7680 grains avoirdupois equals 7000 grains troy, and hence 1 grain troy = 1.097 grains avoirdupois." see http://openlibrary.org/books/OL7231448M/Metrology. The quote is also in the same author's Universal Commerce (1818) and in The Universal Cambist (1835). Wendy.krieger (talk) 09:50, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Conversion tables are a bit obscure
The conversion tables threw me for quite a while.

I know the first one reads "1 ℔ is equivalent to 12 ℥ which is also 96 ʒ, 288 ℈ and 5760 gr." and so on, but it's hard to follow.

Personally, I think something more along the lines of this table would be more suited to purpose. I also changed the first cell in the example to read "Weight (symbol)" as the majority fall into that category as opposed to abbreviation.

I'm no expert though. Tomásdearg92 (talk) 22:43, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Apothecaries' system. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070809121753/http://www.pharmacy.wisc.edu/aihp/AC/AC10.pdf to http://www.pharmacy.wisc.edu/aihp/AC/AC10.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 14:43, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Merging articles
Greetings, someone recently suggested that Apothecaries' ounce should be merged into this article. Was wondering everyone's thoughts on the matter. I support it personally. Zell Faze (talk) 02:20, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Support merging. Ethanbas (talk) 02:05, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

British Apothecaries' weights and conversions (After 1864)
Hello all, I hope whoever is reading this is having a good day. Anyways one particular section in this article is slightly unclear.

So as you know the United Kingdom and the United Stated still use imperial and US Customary units respectively for various purposes. However, both countries use the metric system within the medical field, that is for the most part.

Under the subsection "English-speaking countries", there is a chart with the title British Apothecaries' weights and conversions (Post-Imperial-based version, 1864–1971). There is also a sentence within the paragraph that states "In the United States, the apothecaries' system remained official until it was abolished in 1971 in favour of the metric system."

There are two problems. First of all, "(Post-Imperial-based version, 1864–1971)" makes it sound as if the imperial system was changed or fell out of use, which obviously isn't true. For someone who doesn't know about the usage of the imperial system this can seem confusing. Second of all, "In the United States, the apothecaries' system remained official until it was abolished in 1971 in favour of the metric system." this also isn't true as the US Customary system is still used extensively in the US.

Please also distinguish between the post 1864 apothecaries' system from the imperial system, because judging from the article there dosen't seem to be a difference.

Point is this subsection is unclear and needs more clarifying.

I am relatively inexperienced with wikipedia, so if I made a mistake please notify me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unofficialwikicorrector (talk • contribs) 01:33, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

 * I concur. At best, 'abolished' is a completely untrue word to use here. It was never abolished, and the government plans for a transition were soon retracted.

 * I remember from that period that there was some sort of official transition plans made by the US government. Obviously, it was almost completely forgotten by the general population and most industries after 3 decades. A NASA space craft and the mission failed (near the year 2000?) costing many years and hundreds of millions, because some work was done in Europe in metrics and it was unknowingly used without conversion. Half a century later, the apothocaries' remains the primary system of measure for many groups/industries, including construction, food recipes, and consumer markets (although most supermarket labels now show two units of measure). The automotive industry has changed only to the degree that imported vehicles are more popular than in 1971; US made vehicles scarcely use Metrics, but may have foreign parts. Most households have tools for both. Manufacturing in general varies wildly. Medical is mostly metric.

 * We're a mixed-up mess here! Why?

 * The government planned to introduce Metrics to elementary schools and encourage industries to gradually replace the existing system with the Metric system as students progressed. It may have been a very good plan. However, the gasoline industry accidentally killed the move to metrics when they took advantage of it during the 1973 Oil Crisis by jumping ahead of all the planned timelines. At that time, prices at the gasoline pumps were skyrocketing. People accustomed to very stable prices (around $0.25 per gallon?) were outraged with each price hike. Many oil companies chose this time to switch to liters at the pump in order to obfuscate additional price jumps. Virtually no-one except a few kids knew what a liter was, and drivers couldn't easily compare prices which in their minds were still based on the gallon. Consumer rage turned on government officials and their Metric transition plans, as well as the Metric system itself. Hence, the scope of the plans were officially retracted, the oil companies restored the gallon to their pumps, and the transition pretty much halted.

 * Over time, those kids grew up liking the simpler metric system. However, by then automation and computerization had been born and, with bolts and tools and vessels of the old measurements and computerization to match, expanded wildly; and the cost of transitioning grew. By the turn of the century, the costs of converting a factory were generally prohibitive. Instead, newer manufacturing and software systems are designed to handle either measurement system, or both simultaneously.

 * To this day, there are no public-facing government mandates that I am aware of, except that of teaching it in schools, and both measurement systems coexist. Coder Steve (talk) 19:01, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

I am having difficulties with determining what weights (masses) were used by apothecaries in the United Kingdom after 1864: see the table entitled “British Apothecaries' weights and conversions (Post-Imperial-based version, 1864–1971)” in the section “English-speaking countries”. The reference attached to the title of the table is to the British Pharmacopoeia of 1864. This Pharmocopoeia shows a clear intention (pages xviii-xix) that avoirdupois weights (such as the ounce of 473.5 grains) should replace the apothecaries’ weights (such as the ounce of 480 grains), involving the abolition of the drachm and the scruple. In addition, the article refers to a Medicinals Act of 1858 abolishing the apothecaries’ system. However:
 * I cannot find a (UK) Medicinals Act 1858, and the Medical Act 1858 (chapter 90) does not directly abolish the apothecaries’ weights, although section LIV says “The General Council shall cause to be published under their Direction a Book containing a List of Medicines and Compounds, and the Manner of preparing them, together with the true Weights and Measures by which they are to be prepared and mixed, and containing such other Matter and Things relating thereto as the General Council shall think fit, to be called "British Pharmacopoeia;" and the General Council shall cause to be altered, amended, and republished such Pharmacopoeia as often as they shall deem it necessary.”
 * there are continuing references to the apothecaries’ weights (see, for example, Pears’ Cyclopaedia, 48th edition (undated, but of around 1938), p 133, section “Apothecaries’ Weight”, and p 142, on symbols used in medicine and pharmacy; and also a website https://www.apothecariesweights.com/ by Ben Nichols, who says that he used these weights till metrication in 1969 (and that his website covers the UK only);
 * the Weights and Measures Act 1963, section 10(3) reads as follows: “(3) Without prejudice to subsection (9) of this section, no person shall use the ounce apothecaries, drachm, scruple, fluid drachm or minim for trade otherwise than for the purposes of transactions in drugs.” Subsection (9) goes on to say that the Board [of Trade] may make orders to remove these measures from the lists in the Schedules to the Act. It appears from this Act that the apothecaries’ weights were still in use, otherwise there would be no need to say that they were still available only for use for transactions in drugs or to provide power to abolish them.The SJP (talk) 15:41, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Problems with Dutch (language and weights)
Referring to the subsection ‘Weight standards named after Troyes’, the 20th part of the ounce (whether troy, market or weigh-house) was in Dutch called engels, in the singular, the plural was engelsen. (Engels litterally means ‘English’, as it was inspired by the English pennyweight. The French name for the 20th of an oune was esterlin, which is likewise etymologically related to ‘(penny) sterling’.)

The 32nd part of the engels was in Dutch called aas in the singular, plural azen. The form assen used in the text (and presumably in the cited sources) can only ultimately derive from a German source. In Dutch it can only be the plural of as, meaning ‘axle’ or ‘ash’ (of a fire, not the tree). Exceptionally, as can mean the Roman weight or coin, but then it is not used in the plural.

The term ‘Flemish’ is used rather confusingly in the subsection. Amsterdam is included in a list with “other Flemish cities”, but certainly never was in Flanders, neither in the ancient sense (the medieval and early modern County) nor in the modern (the Dutch speaking part of Belgium). Antwerp only is Flemish in the modern, not in the ancient sense; and the latter is the one appropriate to the implied time frame of before the French Revolution, the wikilink to the modern sense is therefor not appropriate either.

Although the trooisch gewicht was in intention the same in Flanders, Brabant and Holland, as they all descended from the troy weight as prescribed by the Burgundian and Habsburg rulers of the Low Countries for the coinage and the trade in precious metals in their territories in order to maintain uniformity in coinage, they were controlled independently in each town and bailiwick, usually with separate standards. In the province of Holland, however, the inspector of troy weight (“IJkmeester van den Trooischen Gewichte”) of Amsterdam was appointed by the States of Holland as inspector of troy weight for the whole province, so that troy weight was the same in the whole province. The Earl of Leicester, ‘provided’ by Queen Elizabeth I as a governor for the United Provinces, in his efforts to control the coinage of the United Provinces centrally again, appointed the inspector of troy weight for Holland as inspector-general for the whole Union, but this did not last. Nevertheless, during the existence of the United Provinces the troy weight of Holland, effectively that of Amsterdam, was dominant in the Union, and traders in precious metals from other provinces sometimes went to the inspector at Amsterdam voluntarily. This Holland troy weight (“Hollandsch Trooisch Gewicht”), incidentally, used a pound of 2 troy marks or 16 troy ounces, instead of the 12 ounces usual elsewhere.

The French client states that replaced the United Provinces (the Batavian Republic, the Batavian Commonwealth and the Kingdom of Holland) tried to introduce the metric system, but stumbled over practical difficulties. In an interim effort to establish unity in weights, the Batavian Republic imposed the Holland troy weight for precious stones and metals and the Amsterdam weigh-house weight {“Amsterdamsch Waag-gewicht”) for other wares across the board. In the meantime the southern Netherlands (the later Belgium) were annexed to France, that imposed first the metric system (rather ineffectively) and then the mesures usuelles. When in 1810 the Kingdom of Holland was also annexed by the French Empire, the mesures usuelles were likewise imposed, but when independence was re-established as the Sovereign Principality of the United Netherlands the previous interim returned. The United Kingdom of the Netherlands, legally continuing from the Sovereign Principality but also including the southern provinces, definitively established metric weight in 1820. In the five years (or seven years in the north, counting the Sovereign Principality) before that, the existing situation was maintained, i.e. in the northern provinces Holland troy weight and Amsterdam weigh-house weight, in the southern provinces the mesures usuelles. To say that the Kingdom used “Flemish troy weight” is therefor at best confusing.

All this time the apothecaries’ weight (called medicinaal gewicht, ‘medicinal weight’) was left to the guilds of apothecaries and surgeons, usually using a pound of 12 ounces (troy, in intention) subdivided in the usual way in drams, scruples and grains. But when the Kingdom of the Netherlands adopted metric weight in 1820, a special “metrical” medicinal weight was introduced with a pound of 375 g (⅜ kg) subdivided in the old usual way. This was abolished in favour of full application of the metric weight in 1870.

I have not changed anything in the article, as I don’t quite know what would be appropriate to include under its scope, but more importantly as I do not have my sources (mainly the book on old Dutch weights, Oude Nederlandse Gewichten by Zevenboom and Wittop Koning, and the Grote Winkler Prins Encyclopedie, 1972–75 edition) readily available to cite at present. — Mithrennaith (talk) 03:45, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Apothecaries' system


text:
Book of Gates

The Book of Gates (كتاب البوابات) is an ancient Egyptian funerary text dating from the New Kingdom. The Book of Gates is long and detailed, consisting of one hundred scenes. It narrates the passage of a newly deceased soul into the next world journeying with of the sun god, Ra, through the underworld during the hours of the night towards his resurrection. The soul is required to pass through a series of 'gates' at each hour of the journey. Each gate is guarded by a different serpent deity that is associated with a different goddess. It is important that the deceased knows the names of each guardian. Depictions of the judgment of the dead are shown in the last three hours. The text implies that some people will pass through unharmed, but others will suffer torment in a lake of fire. At the end of Ra's journey through the underworld, he emerges anew to take his place back in the sky.

History
The text was not named by the Egyptians. It was named by French Egyptologist Gaston Maspero who called it 'Livre de Portes' (Book of Gates). Many scholars have studied, deciphered, and translated the book from Jean-Francois Champollion to Erik Hornung and Alexander Piankoff. The latter two being the ones to create the designation of hours and divisions, respectively.

It was discovered in tombs of the 19th and 20th Dynasties but the first appearance discovered was in the 18th Dynasty, Horemheb, though this version is incomplete. Prior to its appearance in Horemheb's tomb, the Amduat was the commonly used funeral text among royals in their tombs.

Appearances
Various scenes from the Book of Gates have been depicted in many tombs from the New Kingdom ranging from Horemheb (d.c. 1295 BC) to Ramesses VII (d.c. 1130 BC). Seti I has the first complete inscription decorating his sarcophagus, as well as the first half of the book decorating the pillared halls of his tomb.

Horemheb has the earliest depictions of the Book, decorating the walls of his tomb. The second through sixth hours are on the wall of his burial chamber. This was significant because it broke the traditional use of the Amduat usually displayed on walls of burial chambers prior to Horemheb.

In many of the tombs, partial scenes from the Book of Gates are inscribed on the pillared walls, like in Ramesses II’s tomb. Other kings, like Ramesses VII, only had selections from the hours depicted in their tombs.

They also appear in the tomb of Sennedjem, a worker in the village of Deir el-Medina, the ancient village of artists and craftsmen who built pharaonic tombs in the New Kingdom. it was also displayed in the tomb of Tjanefer, a priest of Amun.

The Book became was less popular to display in tombs of people of non-royal lineage. They tended to depict the Book of the Dead but it wasn't uncommon to find the Book of Gates alongside it. In some cases, only a few scenes were depicted interspersed with the Book of the Dead.

Relationship to the Amduat
Closely related to the Book of Gates is the Book of Amduat (also known as The Book of the Hidden Chambers), which also follows Ra's journey through the underworld, however with some differences. It often accompanies the Book of Gates in many tombs because it is a guide of the deceased's souls journey and what deities it will encounter in the Underworld. According to Mohamed Ragheb Dardir, the main difference between the books is, the Book of Gates acts as a guide about the dangers that the deceased soul will encounter and what must be done to pass through each gate in order to be resurrected. It is believed the books are both often depicted in tombs because on their own, they are not a sufficient guide for the soul to complete its journey with Ra.

The biggest difference between the Book of Gates and Amduat are the serpent gate deities guarding the doorway for each hour. These doorways and serpents are named throughout the journey and need to be named in order to cross into the next hour. On the other side of each door are two more guardians and uraei that emit fire. The Book of Going Forth by Day also contains similar doorways in the underworld.

The gods that make up the crew of the solar barque are different from the Amduat to the Book of Gates. In the Amduat the solar barque is larger whereas in Book of Gates, the crew is made up of Heka and Sia. These are the only two who are in the boat with Ra along the entire journey through the underworld.

The Hours of the Book of Gates
The hours of the Book of Gates follow Ra's journey across the underworld during the 12 hours of the night. Ra leads the deceased soul through a series of gates to reach his resurrection. The soul must get past each gate deity by knowing their name and attributes. The Book of Gates is a series of one hundred images broken into three registers for each hour depicting the journey. Each image is accompanied by text describing the details of each register.

At the end of each hour, the deceased soul encounters a ‘gate’ guarded by a serpent deity that they must know the names and characteristics of in order to pass through unharmed.

Hour 1: This is Ra's arrival into the underworld and greeted by the “gods of the west” which refers to the Western Horizon. This scene depicts Ra in the scarab god form of Kephri who is surrounded by a snake god for protection on his solar barque. The solar barque is sailing through the mountains depicted in the scene. There are also images of standards, one with a jackal head and one with a ram, held by bearded gods Set and Tat.

This hour is different to the remaining because it is the only scene where Ra and the deceased soul are not in the underworld.

Hour 2: Once the boat passes between the Western Mountain, it reaches the door to the second division. This door is guarded by the serpent Saa-Set. The door itself is named Watcher of the Desert. The accompanying texts speaks of the darkness beyond the door until the god manifests in his godly form. Surrounding the boat are bound men guarded by Atum. The text refers to these men as ‘damned’ and ‘blessed’ by Ra, where they are to either take their place in the afterlife (the blessed) or be destroyed by the serpent (the damned). The blessed make offerings to the doorway of the serpent named Winding One, guarding the next door.

Hour 3: Just beyond the door, named Piercing of Embers,” are twelve mummies who are protected by a fire-breathing snake at the front and back of the corridor. Ra demands the fire penetrate the dark corridor where it illuminates a Lake of Fire that the mummies are surrounding. The solar barque crosses the lake and the other side, Ra calls for the mummies to unwrap themselves and a be given breath and offerings for pulling the solar barque. The accompanying texts states Ra asks for safe passage across the lake of fire for the worthy blessed souls. Once the boat reaches the next gateway, the entire scene is drenched in darkness again.

Hour 4: Once through the gate, Ra is bathed in darkness. The bark is pulled along by four gods until it reaches building containing nine shrines that contain nine mummified gods. These are the ‘gods who follow Osiris, who are in their abodes.’ These gods protect the ba. In front of this shine house are two groups of six goddesses guarding a hill to land, on the left, and one to water, on the right, separated by a giant serpent. The land on the left shows Osiris mummified, behind Osiris are twelve gods guarding pits of fire. The right path over water is the Lake of Life. Hour 5: This is the Judgement of Osiris scene. The solar barque is pulled along by the four gods of the Tuat (duat or underworld). They are pulling the bark towards nine gods holding a long serpent named Ennutchi who is the god Apep. In front of these nine gods are twelve additional gods deemed “the souls of the men who are in the Tuat.” Ra instructs these gods to attack the serpent so it is not able to travel through the gateway. In the next sequence of the scene Horus is depicted presiding over the men the four ethnicities of man: Egyptian, Asiatics, Nubian, Libyans (sixteen in total). These groups represent how all are welcoming in the afterlife. Horus grants protection of the men and gives them offerings. There is another gateway which leads to the Judgement Hall of Osiris. This is where Osiris weighs the soul of the deceased against evil. Hour 6: Once he has been judged, Ra passes through the gateway. There, Ra is rejoined with his ba. In this scene we see mummies with tridents protecting Ra from the serpent Apep as he is reuniting with his ba. As Ra rejoins his ba he breathes life into the mummies that guard him, granting them their resurrection. At the end of the scene Ra is casts his enemies into the flames of the Lake of Fire.

Hour 7: Ra passes through the gate guarded by "One Who Seizes with His Eye." In this scene Ra comes before twelve men who carry ma ’at feathers depicting they have been judged to be true and good. These twelve are offered libations for the afterlife. It is also depicted that those that were judged to be evil are tied to jackal-headed stakes of Geb, awaiting their punishment. The scene also shows those that have been judged as true tending to fields of grain with Ra presiding over them. This represents the manifestation of a bountiful harvest year in the upperworld.

Hour 8: The next gate Ra passes is guarded by nine gods just inside the door. The serpent guarding the door is named “Closed of Eye.” Through the door, Ra is greeted with deities holding a long rope from Aken. These rope bearers bring forth the hours of the day. They tie up Aken and give praise to Ra.

Hour 9: Ra passes through the gateway guarded by “Flaming of Face.” The doorway itself is named “Glowing One.” Passed the door Ra comes to an Island of fire and the Waters of Nun which has people floating in it, they will be restored and given breathe when they emerge. The island of fire is depicted for Horus to burn those that he has condemned, those who have done evil against the sun god.

Hour 10: Ra progresses through this scene trying to defeat Apep. At the end of the scene, Apep is captured by the gods standing before the solar barque, holding nets. In this hour, is also a reconciliation between Horus and Seth which symbolizes the uniting of Upper and Lower Egypt under the sun god as begins to rise over the lands and bring a new day.

Hour 11: Apep is still captured and punished in this scene by Horus’ four sons and Geb. After the destruction of Apep, Ra is surrounded by all types of deities for protection that pull him along the sky. As Ra comes to the gate, there are two scepters, one labeled Osiris and the other Horus. The writing by the scepters speaks praise of Ra and tells of his soul and body in heaven and earth, respectively.

Hour 12: Ra exits the afterworld. The scene shows many figures holding various objects from scepters to stars to disks. They represent various aspects of helping Ra take his place during the daytime hours. Ra passes Apep being punished again by the Ennead, nine gods who helped Ra along his journey. Once Ra passes through the final gate of the underworld, he is in the waters of Nun, who lifts the boat up. Ra is once again in the form of Kephri. Nun raises the solar barque into the awaiting arms of Nut.

The Fourth Division of the Fifth Hour
One of the most well known scenes in the Book of Gates is in its fourth division section of the Fifth Hour. Gods are depicted in the upper row. They also carry the body of a serpent. Hieroglyphs meaning "lifetime" can be seen in the lower register. At the beginning of the lower register are sixteen figures in repetitive sets of four being led by Horus into the afterworld. The four beings correspond to the four ethnicities people were categorized in: Egyptians (Remetu), Asiatics (Aamu), Nubians (Nehsey), Libyans (Themehu). These beings are represented because all people are welcome and must make the journey to the afterworld.

Nubians are depicted in consistent ways in all three tombs (although they are bare chested both at the tomb of Seti I and the tomb of Merenptah but not at Ramesses III) but in all three tombs the Nubian figures in this third position are consistently beardless, have jet black skin and have a thick red sash that goes across their chest and also wraps around the waist and dangles down. However, unlike in the tomb of Seti I and the tomb of Merenptah, at the tomb of Ramesses III, a second virtually the same figure is also found in the first position usually occupied by Egyptians. The hieroglyph usually representing Egyptians remains next to this figure in its traditional position. These two figures in the same garb at Ramesses III are similar in appearance to Nubians depicted in the Tomb of Huy and in other Egyptian art but similar figures are not found elsewhere in this tomb although a great number of other typically depicted Egyptian figures are.

Another peculiarity is that the Asiatic and Libyan are in consistent 2nd and 4th position at both Seti I and Merenptah tombs but switch position at the tomb of Ramesses III while the hieroglyphs do not. At Seti I and Merenptah tombs the Asiatic in the second position is depicted as is typical in much other art of the period, a bearded figure with a cloth headband with two excess pieces of the headband hanging down. Additionally at these two tombs, Seti and Merenptah, a Libyan is at the end of the row, at the 4th position and is depicted with typical Libyan features of the period, a side lock of hair and a long gown-like garment that is worn somewhat openly and with one or both shoulders exposed. However, while all the hieroglyphs in all three tombs remain in the same position left to right, at Ramesses III, these two figures Asiatic and Libyan, have switched position in comparison to the other tombs. The figures may have been created after a separate artisan had first rendered the hieroglyphs. The only figure at Ramesses III that is in the same position as the figures at Seti I and Merenptah tombs is the Nubian in the third position. The hieroglyph position have no irregularities in type or sequence between each tomb. The first figure at the Tomb of Ramesses III has a hieroglyph normally associated with Egyptians but may be placed next to the hieroglyph in error which sometimes occurs in tombs, however the explanation remains unresolved.

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

title: Book of Gates


text:
Almeida Garrett

João Baptista da Silva Leitão de Almeida Garrett, 1st Viscount of Almeida Garrett (4 February 1799 – 9 December 1854) was a Portuguese poet, orator, playwright, novelist, journalist, politician, and a peer of the realm. A major promoter of theater in Portugal he is considered the greatest figure of Portuguese Romanticism and a true revolutionary and humanist. He proposed the construction of the D. Maria II National Theatre and the creation of the Conservatory of Dramatic Art.

Biography
Garrett was born in Porto, the son of António Bernardo da Silva Garrett (1739–1834), a fidalgo of the Royal Household and knight of the Order of Christ, and his wife (they were married in 1796) Ana Augusta de Almeida Leitão (b. Porto, c. 1770). At an early age, around 4 or 5 years old, Garrett changed his name to João Baptista da Silva Leitão, adding a name from his godfather and altering the order of his surnames.

In 1809, his family fled the second French invasion carried out by Soult's troops, seeking refuge in Angra do Heroísmo, Terceira Island, Azores. While in the Azores, he was taught by his uncle, Dom Frei Alexandre da Sagrada Família (Faial, Horta, 22 May 1737 – Terceira, Angra do Heroísmo, 22 April 1818), also a freemason, then the 25th Bishop of Angra (1816–1818) and former bishop of Malacca and Timor; his two other uncles were Manuel Inácio da Silva Garrett, Archdeacon of Angra, and Inácio da Silva Garrett, also a clergyman of Angra. In childhood, his mulatto Brazilian nanny Rosa de Lima taught him some traditional stories that later influenced his work.

In 1818, he moved to Coimbra to study at the University law school. In 1818, he published O Retrato de Vénus, a work for which was soon to be prosecuted, as it was considered "materialist, atheist, and immoral"; it was during this period that he adopted and added his pen name de Almeida Garrett, who was seen as more aristocratic.

Although he did not take active part in the Liberal Revolution that broke out in Porto in 1820, he contributed with two patriotic verses, the Hymno Constitucional and the Hymno Patriótico, which his friends copied and distributed in the streets of Porto. After the "Vilafrancada", a reactionary coup d'état led by the Infante Dom Miguel in 1823, he was forced to seek exile in England. He had just married the beautiful Luísa Cândida Midosi who was only 12 or 13 years old at the time and was the sister of his friend Luís Frederico Midosi, later married to Maria Teresa Achemon, both related to theatre and children of José Midosi (son of an Italian father and an Irish mother) and wife Ana Cândida de Ataíde Lobo. While in England, in Edgbaston, Warwickshire, he began his association with Romanticism, being subject to the first-hand influences of William Shakespeare and Walter Scott, as well as to that of Gothic aesthetics. In the beginning of 1825, Garrett left for France where he wrote Camões (1825) and Dona Branca (1826), poems that are usually considered the first Romantic works in Portuguese literature. In 1826, he returned to Portugal, where he settled for two years and founded the newspapers O Portuguez and O Chronista. In 1828, under the rule of King Miguel of Portugal, he was again forced to settle in England, publishing Adozinda and performing his tragedy Catão at the Theatre Royal in Plymouth.

Together with Alexandre Herculano and Joaquim António de Aguiar, he took part in the Landing of Mindelo, carried out during the Liberal Wars. When a constitutional monarchy was established, he briefly served as its Consul General to Brussels; upon his return, he was acclaimed as one of the major orators of Liberalism, and took initiative in the creation of a new Portuguese theatre (during the period, he wrote his historical plays Gil Vicente, D. Filipa de Vilhena, and O Alfageme de Santarém).

In 1843, Garrett published Romanceiro e Cancioneiro Geral, a collection of folklore; two years later, he wrote the first volume of his historical novel O Arco de Santana (fully published in 1850, it took inspiration from Victor Hugo's The Hunchback of Notre-Dame). O Arco de Santana signified a change in Garrett's style, leading to a more complex and subjective prose with which he experimented at length in Viagens na Minha Terra (Travels in My Homeland, 1846). His innovative manner was also felt in his poem collections Flores sem Fruto (Flowers without Fruit, 1844) and Folhas Caídas (Fallen Leaves, 1853).

Ennobled by Dona Maria II of Portugal in 1852 with the title of 1st Viscount of Almeida Garrett, he was Minister of Foreign Affairs for only a few days in the same year (in the cabinet of the Duke of Saldanha).

Almeida Garrett ended his relationship with Luísa Midosi and divorced in 1835 (who later remarried Alexandre Desiré Létrillard) to join 17-year-old Adelaide Deville Pastor in 1836 – she was to remain his partner until her early death in 1839, leaving a daughter named Maria Adelaide, whose early life tragedy and illegitimacy inspired her father to write the play Frei Luís de Sousa.

Later in his life he became the lover of Rosa de Montúfar y Infante, a Spanish noblewoman daughter of the 3rd Marques de Selva Alegre, wife of Joaquim António Velez Barreiros, 1st Baron and 1st Viscount de Nossa Senhora da Luz and twice (277th and 286th) Commander of the Order of the Immaculate Conception of Vila Viçosa, and Minister and Governor of Cape Verde, whom he celebrated at his last and probably best poetry book Folhas Caídas.

Garrett died of cancer in Lisbon at 6:30 in the afternoon of 9 December 1854. He was buried at the Cemetery of Prazeres and, on 3 May 1903, his remains were transferred to the national pantheon in the Jerónimos Monastery, where they rest near to those of Alexandre Herculano and Luís Vaz de Camões.

Despite the wish that it went to his natural daughter, one of the reasons why he accepted it, his title passed on to the descendants of his brother Alexandre José da Silva de Almeida Garrett (7 August 1797 – 24 October 1847), fidalgo of the Royal Household, who was a partisan of King Miguel I of Portugal for all his life, and wife (m. 16 June 1822) Angélica Isabel Cardoso Guimarães (2 February 1803 –). He also had a sister Maria Amália de Almeida Garrett, who married in the Azores where they were then living with Francisco de Meneses de Lemos e Carvalho (Terceira, Angra do Heroísmo, 20 September 1786 –) and had female issue.

Honour: Portugal issued a set of 4 postage stamps in honor of Joao Baptista da Silva Leitao de Almeida Garrett on 7 March 1957.

List of works

 * 1819 - Lucrécia (Lucretia)
 * 1820 - O Roubo das Sabinas (poem written in youth, published in 1968) (The Rape of the Sabine Women)
 * 1820 - Mérope (theater) (Merope)
 * 1821 - O Retrato de Vénus (poetry) (The Portrait of Venus)
 * 1821 - Catão (theater) (Cato)
 * 1825 - Camões (poetry) (Camoens)
 * 1826 - Dona Branca (poetry) (Lady Branca)
 * 1828 - Adozinda (poetry)
 * 1829 - Lírica de João Mínimo (poetry) (João Mínimo's Lyric)
 * 1829 - O tratado "Da Educação" (A Treatise on Education)
 * 1830 - Portugal na Balança da Europa (Portugal on the scales of Europe)
 * 1838 - Um Auto de Gil Vicente (theater) (Gil Vicente's Auto)
 * 1842 - O Alfageme de Santarém (theater)
 * 1843 - Romanceiro e Cancioneiro Geral, tomo 1
 * 1843 - Frei Luís de Sousa (theater) ISBN 0-85051-510-6 (Brother Luís de Sousa)
 * 1844 - Miragaia
 * 1845 - Flores sem fruto (poetry) (Fruitless Flowers)
 * 1845 - O Arco de Sant'Ana I (fiction) (The Arch of Sant'Ana I)
 * 1846 - Falar Verdade a Mentir (theater) (Speaking the Truth by Lying)
 * 1846 - Viagens na Minha Terra (fiction) ISBN 0-85051-511-4 (Travels in my Homeland)
 * 1846 - D. Filipa de Vilhena (theater)
 * 1848 - As profecias do Bandarra (Bandarra's Prophecies)
 * 1848 - Um Noivado no Dafundo (A Wedding in Dafundo)
 * 1848 - A sobrinha do Marquês (theater) (The Marquis's Niece)
 * 1849 - Memórias Históricas de José Xavier Mouzinho da Silveira (Historical Memories of José Xavier Mouzinho da Silveira)
 * 1850 - O Arco de Sant'Ana II (fiction) (The Arch of Sant'Ana II)
 * 1851 - Romanceiro e Cancioneiro Geral, tomo 2 e 3
 * 1853 - Folhas Caídas (poetry) (Fallen Leaves)
 * 1853 - Fábulas e Folhas Caídas (poetry) (Fables and Fallen Leaves)
 * 1854? - Helena (fiction)
 * 18?? - Afonso de Albuquerque
 * 1871 - Discursos Parliamentares e Memórias Biográficas (Parliamentary Speeches and Biographical Memories)

title: Almeida Garrett


text:
Ratzinger

Ratzinger is a German surname. It may mean a person from Ratzing, there are several such places in Bavaria. Notable people with the surname include:

 * Pope Benedict XVI, born Joseph Aloisius Ratzinger
 * Georg Ratzinger, a Catholic priest, musician, conductor, and brother of Pope Benedict XVI
 * Georg Ratzinger (politician), a Catholic priest, author, politician, and great-uncle of Georg Ratzinger and Pope Benedict XVI
 * Joseph Ratzinger, Sr., the father of Georg Ratzinger and Pope Benedict XVI
 * Wumpscut, born Rudolf 'Rudy' Ratzinger

title: Ratzinger


text:
Eastern meadow vole

The eastern meadow vole (Microtus pennsylvanicus), sometimes called the field mouse or meadow mouse, is a North American vole found in eastern Canada and the United States. Its range extends farther south along the Atlantic coast.

The western meadow vole, Florida salt marsh vole, and beach vole were formerly considered regional variants or subspecies of M. pennsylvanicus, but have all since been designated as distinct species.

The eastern meadow vole is active year-round, usually at night. It also digs burrows, where it stores food for the winter and females give birth to their young. Although these animals tend to live close together, they are aggressive towards one another. This is particularly evident in males during the breeding season. They can cause damage to fruit trees, garden plants, and commercial grain crops.

Taxonomy
The species was formerly grouped with the western meadow vole (M. drummondii) and the Florida salt marsh vole (M. dukecampbelli) as a single species with a very large range, but genetic evidence indicates that these are all distinct species.

Distribution
The eastern meadow vole is found throughout eastern North America. It ranges from Labrador and New Brunswick south to South Carolina and extreme northeastern Georgia; west through Tennessee to Ohio. West of Ohio, it is replaced by the western meadow vole. Several subspecies are found on eastern islands, including the beach vole (M. p. breweri) and the extinct Gull Island vole.

Plant communities
Eastern meadow voles are most commonly found in grasslands, preferring moister areas, but are also found in wooded areas.

In east-central Ohio, eastern meadow voles were captured in reconstructed common cattail (Typha latifolia) wetlands. In Virginia, eastern meadow voles were least abundant in eastern red cedar (Juniperus virginiana) glades and most abundant in fields with dense grass cover.

Habits
Eastern meadow voles are active year-round and day or night, with no clear 24-hour rhythm in many areas. Most changes in activity are imposed by season, habitat, cover, temperature, and other factors. Eastern meadow voles have to eat frequently, and their active periods (every two to three hours) are associated with food digestion. In Canada, eastern meadow voles are active the first few hours after dawn and during the two- to four-hour period before sunset. Most of the inactive period is spent in the nest.

Reproduction
Gestation lasts 20 to 23 days. Neonates are pink and hairless, with closed eyes and ears. Fur begins to appear by three days, and young are completely furred except for the belly by seven days. Eyes and ears open by eight days. Weaning occurs from 12 to 14 days. Young born in spring and early summer attain adult weight in 12 weeks, but undergo a fall weight loss. Young born in late summer continue growing through the fall and maintain their weight through the winter. Maximum size is reached between two and 10 months.

Typical eastern meadow vole litters consist of four to six young, with extremes of one and 11 young. On average, 2.6 young are successfully weaned per litter. Litter size is not significantly correlated with latitude, elevation, or population density. Fall, winter, and spring litters tend to be smaller than summer litters. Litter size was positively correlated with body size, and is not significantly different in primaparous and multiparous females. Primaparous females had fewer young per litter than multiparous females. Litter size was constant in summer breeding periods at different population densities. Female eastern meadow voles reach reproductive maturity earlier than males; some ovulate and become pregnant as early as three weeks old. Males are usually six to eight weeks old before mature sperm are produced. One captive female produced 17 litters in one year for a total of 83 young. One of her young produced 13 litters (totalling 78 young) before she was a year old.

Patterns of mortality apparently vary among eastern meadow vole populations. The average eastern meadow vole lifespan is less than one month because of high nestling and juvenile mortality. The average time adults are recapturable in a given habitat is about two months, suggesting the average extended lifespan (i.e. how much time adult eastern meadow voles have left) is about two months, not figuring in emigration. Mortality was 88% for the first 30 days after birth. and postnestling juveniles had the highest mortality rate (61%), followed by young adults (58%) and older age groups (53%). Nestlings were estimated to have the lowest mortality rate (50%). Estimated mean longevity ranges from two to 16 months. The maximum lifespan in the wild is 16 months, and few voles live more than two years.

Eastern meadow vole populations fluctuate annually and also tend to reach peak densities at two- to five-year intervals, with population declines in intervening years. Breeding often ceases in January and starts again in March. Over the course of a year, eastern meadow vole populations tend to be lowest in early spring; the population increases rapidly through summer and fall.

In years of average population sizes, typical eastern meadow vole population density is about 15 to 45 eastern meadow voles per acre in old-field habitat. In peak years, their population densities may reach 150 per acre in marsh habitat (more favorable for eastern meadow voles than old fields). Peak eastern meadow vole abundance can exceed 1,482 eastern meadow voles per hectare (600/acre) in northern prairie wetlands. Eastern meadow voles in optimal habitats in Virginia (old fields with dense vegetation) reached densities of 983/ha (398/ac); populations declined to 67/ha (27/ac) at the lowest point in the cycle. Different factors influencing population density have been assigned primary importance by different authors. Reich listed the following factors as having been suggested by different authors: food quality, predation, climatic events, density-related physiological stress, and the presence of genetically determined behavioral variants among dispersing individuals.

Normal population cycles do not occur when dispersal is prevented; under normal conditions, dispersers have been shown to be behaviorally, genetically, and demographically different from residents. A threshold density of cover is thought to be needed for eastern meadow vole populations to increase. Above the threshold amount, the quantity of cover influences the amplitude and possibly the duration of the population peak. Local patches of dense cover could serve as source populations or reservoirs to colonize less favorable habitats with sparse cover.

Eastern meadow voles form extensive colonies and develop communal latrine areas. They are socially aggressive and agonistic; females dominate males and males fight amongst themselves.

Habitat
Optimal eastern meadow vole habitat consists of moist, dense grassland with substantial amounts of plant litter. Habitat selection is largely influenced by relative ground cover of grasses and forbs; soil temperature, moisture, sodium, potassium, and pH levels; humidity; and interspecific competition. Eastern meadow voles are most commonly associated with sites having high soil moisture. They are often restricted to the wetter microsites when they occur in sympatry with prairie voles (Microtus ochrogaster) or montane voles. In eastern Massachusetts, eastern meadow vole density on a mosaic of grassy fields and mixed woods was positively correlated with decreasing vertical woody stem density and decreasing shrub cover. Density was highest on plots with more forbs and grasses and less with woody cover; eastern meadow voles preferred woody cover over sparse vegetation where grassy cover was not available.

In West Virginia, the only forested habitats in which eastern meadow voles were captured were seedling stands.

In Pennsylvania, three subadult eastern meadow voles were captured at least 1.6 miles (2.6 km) from the nearest appreciable suitable eastern meadow vole habitat, suggesting they are adapted to long-distance dispersal.

In Ohio, the effects of patch shape and proportion of edge were investigated by mowing strips between study plots. The square plots were 132 feet per side (40 m x 40 m), and the rectangular patches were 52.8 feet by 330 feet (16 m x 100 m). Square habitat patches were not significantly different from rectangular patches in eastern meadow vole density. Edge effects in patches of this size were not found, suggesting eastern meadow voles are edge-tolerant. Habitat patch shape did affect dispersal and space use behaviors. In rectangular patches, home ranges were similar in size to those in square patches, but were elongated.

Eastern meadow voles tend to remain in home ranges and defend at least a portion of their home ranges from conspecifics. Home ranges overlap and have irregular shapes. Home range size depends on season, habitat, and population density: ranges are larger in summer than winter, those in marshes are larger than in meadows, and are smaller at higher population densities. Home ranges vary in size from 0.08 to 2.3 hectares (0.32-0.9 ac). Females have smaller home ranges than males, but are more highly territorial than males; often, juveniles from one litter are still present in the adult female's home range when the next litter is born. Female territoriality tends to determine density in suboptimal habitats; the amount of available forage may be the determining factor in female territory size, so determines reproductive success.

Cover requirements
Nests are used as nurseries, resting areas, and as protection against weather. They are constructed of woven grass; they are usually subterranean or are constructed under boards, rocks, logs, brush piles, hay bales, fenceposts, or in grassy tussocks. Eastern meadow voles dig shallow burrows, and in burrows, nests are constructed in enlarged chambers. In winter, nests are often constructed on the ground surface under a covering of snow, usually against some natural formation such as a rock or log.

Eastern meadow voles form runways or paths in dense grasses.

Diets
Eastern meadow voles eat most available species of grasses, sedges, and forbs, including many agricultural plant species. In summer and fall, grasses are cut into match-length sections to reach the succulent portions of the leaves and seedheads. Leaves, flowers, and fruits of forbs are also typical components of the summer diet. Fungi, primarily endogones (Endogone spp.), have been reported in eastern meadow vole diets. They occasionally consume insects and snails, and occasionally scavenge on animal remains; cannibalism is frequent in periods of high population density. Eastern meadow voles may damage woody vegetation by girdling when population density is high.

In winter, eastern meadow voles consume green basal portions of grass plants, often hidden under snow. Other winter diet components include seeds, roots, and bulbs. They occasionally strip the bark from woody plants. Seeds and tubers are stored in nests and burrows. Evidence of coprophagy is sparse, but thought to occur.

In an old-field community in Quebec, plants preferred by eastern meadow voles included quackgrass (Elytrigia repens), sedges, fescues (Festuca spp.), wild strawberry (Fragaria virginiana), timothy (Phleum pratense), bluegrasses (Poa spp.), and bird vetch (Vicia cracca).

Predators
Eastern meadow voles are important prey for many hawks, owls, and mammalian carnivores, and are also taken by some snakes. Almost all species of raptors take microtine (Microtus spp.) rodents as prey. Birds not usually considered predators of mice do take voles; examples include gulls (Larus spp.), northern shrike (Larius borealis), common raven (Corvus corax), American crow (C. brachyrhynchos), great blue heron (Ardea herodias), and American bittern (Botaurus lentiginosus). In Ohio, eastern meadow voles comprised 90% of the individual prey remains in long-eared owl (Asio otus) pellets on a relict wet prairie, and in Wisconsin, eastern meadow voles comprised 95% of short-eared owl (A. flammeus) prey. Most mammalian predators take microtine prey. The American short-tailed shrew (Blarina brevicauda) is a major predator; eastern meadow voles avoid areas frequented by short-tailed shrews. Other major mammalian predators include the badger (Taxidea taxus), striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis), weasels (Mustela spp.), marten (Martes americana), domestic dog (Canis familiaris), domestic cat (Felis catus) and mountain lion. Other animals reported to have ingested voles include trout (Salmo spp.) and garter snake (Thamnophis spp.).

Management
Eastern meadow voles are abundant in agricultural habitats. The list of crops damaged by eastern meadow voles includes root and stem crops (asparagus, kohlrabi), tubers, leaf and leafstalks, immature inflorescent vegetables (artichoke, broccoli), low-growing fruits (beans, squash), the bark of fruit trees, pasture, grassland, hay, and grains. Eastern meadow voles are listed as pests on forest plantations. In central New York, colonization of old fields by trees and shrubs was reduced due to seedling predation by eastern meadow voles, particularly under the herb canopy.

Management of eastern meadow vole populations in agricultural areas includes reduction of habitat in waste places such as roadsides and fencerows by mowing, plowing, and herbicide application. Predators, particularly raptors, should be protected to keep eastern meadow vole populations in check. Direct control methods include trapping, fencing, and poisoning; trapping and fencing are of limited effectiveness. Poisons are efficient. Repellents are largely ineffective at present. Plastic mesh cylinders were effective in preventing seedling damage by eastern meadow voles and other rodents. Properly timed cultivation and controlled fires are at least partially effective in reducing populations.

Ecto- and endoparasites have been reported to include trematodes, cestodes, nematodes, acanthocephalans, lice (Anoplura), fleas (Siphonaptera), Diptera, and ticks and mites (Acari).

Human diseases transmitted by microtine rodents include cystic hydatid disease, tularemia, bubonic plague, babesiosis, giardiasis and the Lyme disease spirochete Borrelia burgdorferi.

Ecological importance
As with many other small mammal species, M. pennsylvanicus plays important ecological roles. The eastern meadow vole is an important food source for many predators, and disperses mycorrhizal fungi. It is a major consumer of grass and disperses grass nutrients in its feces. After disruptive site disturbances such as forest or meadow fires, the meadow vole's activities contribute to habitat restoration. It prefers open, nonforest habitats and colonizes such open areas created by fire or other clearing disturbances. Very few eastern meadow voles are found in forest or woodland areas. In newly opened areas, it is quite abundant. In these new open areas, the vole quickly becomes a food source for predators.

Threats
While it is a common and wide-ranging species throughout eastern North America, insular populations on the eastern periphery of the species' range are at risk from invasive species, with the extinction of the Gull Island vole being a notable example of this. In addition, due to its dependence on mesic habitats, populations of the species on the mainland periphery of its range in the Southeastern United States may be at potential risk from climate change-induced aridification.

title: Eastern meadow vole


text: User talk:151.197.179.122

title: User talk:151.197.179.122


text:
User talk:Ppoi307

Hi I'm Ppoi307. In case you havent figured out I am a user on Wikipedia. I will update this as more becomes avaliable.

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I just noticed you'd been here a few days and no one had welcomed you!

You might find these pages useful:

 * How to edit a page

 * How to write a great article

 * Article naming conventions

 * Wikipedia's Manual of Style

You can always experiment in the sandbox.

If you like, you can introduce yourself at the new user log, or write something about yourself on your user page.

One more thing: if you leave a note on any kind of discussion page it's always helpful to sign your post with four tildes ( ~ ), which is automatically converted to your username and the date and time. Don't do this in articles themselves though as they are not 'owned' by any particular contributor.

If you have any questions, see help, leave a question at the help desk, or feel free to drop me a line on my talk page.

Thanks again and happy editing!

— Trilobite (Talk) 12:36, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

re. Jeopardy matches
I appreciate your initiative to edit the "Upcoming Matches" template, but the general rule of thumb is not to remove a game until 11 p.m. Eastern Time (8 p.m. Pacific), because there are readers in other areas who would like this information, but who haven't seen the show yet. Again, thank you, but in the future, please wait until at least 11 p.m. ET. ral315 01:44, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

Authors Response: Sorry I was told it was 7:00 p.m. Thank You. May, 4th

disambiguation pages

 * (regarding Bow Wow (disambiguation)) On disambiguation pages, please observe the rule of one link per entry per Disambiguation Manual of Style. Thank you.--Hraefen Talk 16:24, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Adan Jodorowsky
I've added the "prod" template to the article Adan Jodorowsky, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree with the notice, discuss the issues at Talk:Adan Jodorowsky. You may remove the deletion notice, and the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached, or if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria. TheRingess 23:35, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:Gordon Wynston-Smythe.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Gordon Wynston-Smythe.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Media copyright questions. 22:11, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Hayden Black
The article Hayden Black has been speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable, that is, why an article about that subject should be included in Wikipedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert notability may be deleted at any time.

Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, and for specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. NawlinWiki 13:33, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Edward Green Shoes
This article has been tagged for deletion. Please see the article and WP:PROD for information on how to improve the article or oppose deletion. Regards, Boleyn2 (talk) 14:50, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs
Hello Ppoi307! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 2 of the articles that you created  are tagged as Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring these articles up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current Category:All_unreferenced_BLPs article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the unreferencedBLP tag. Here is the list:

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 01:12, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) William Beavers -
 * 2) Marypat Farrell -

Nomination of Holly Montag for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Holly Montag is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Holly Montag until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. LADY LOTUS • TALK 19:42, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:58, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Kristin Rohde for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Kristin Rohde is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Kristin Rohde& until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. —cnzx (talk) 01:57, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Jackson Vahue

The article Jackson Vahue has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern: "Non-notable fictional character, doesn't pass WP:GNG"

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:26, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Timmy Kirk for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Timmy Kirk is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Timmy Kirk until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. THEFlint Shrubwood (talk) 01:39, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Bob Clendenin for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Bob Clendenin is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Bob Clendenin& until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:32, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

title: User talk:Ppoi307


text: Template:English wine casks

title: Template:English wine casks


text: Template:English brewery casks

title: Template:English brewery casks


text:
Homer W. Smith

Homer William Smith (January 2, 1895 – March 25, 1962) was an American physiologist and science writer known for his experiments on the kidney and philosophical writings on natural history and the theory of evolution.

Biography
Smith was born in Denver, and three years later, his family moved to Cripple Creek, Colorado, which was included in both the Cripple Creek miners' strike of 1894 and the Colorado Labor Wars of 1903–04. He had a stutter from about the age of five, to which he attributes his introspectiveness. Smith's mother died by the time he was seven; he had five older siblings at the time, the oldest of which was 26. Smith describes his father as "of the generation that had one foot still planted in religious tradition, the other planted in irreligious rationalism. ... For his mixed sentiment and skepticism my father paid off his conscience by generous hospitality, and any minister of any gospel was welcome at his table."

At the age of eleven, while Smith had the measles, his father built him a shed in which he could conduct scientific experiments; these involved chemistry and microbiology, as well as the use of a vacuum pump, telegraph, static machine, X-ray tube, and Tesla coil. He also dissected cats, which fueled his interest for biology and diminished his faith in anthropocentrism. As a result of the apathy he felt following the sinking of the RMS Titanic on April 15, 1912, he set out on a philosophical quest of reading and writing with a renewed focus towards scholarship.

Smith received his D.Sc in 1921 from Johns Hopkins University School of Hygiene and Public Health. From 1928 until his retirement in 1961 he was the Professor of Physiology and Director of the Physiological Laboratories at New York University School of Medicine. Smith was a leader in the field of renal physiology. His elegant experiments on the kidney in the 1930s proved beyond any doubt that it operated according to physical principles, both as a filter and a secretory organ, eliminating the last vestige of vitalism in physiology. He used inulin (at the same time as A. N. Richards) to measure how much kidney filtrate is formed. His book The Kidney: Structure and Function in Health and Disease (1951) was an authoritative summary of what was known at that time.

Komongo or, the Lungfish and the Padre (1932) takes place in the Suez Canal where a scientist returning to the United States with a cargo of lungfish for kidney experiments delivers a monologue to an Anglican Minister on how evolution shapes organisms. The book, after being personally rejected by Alfred A. Knopf, was accepted by Viking Press. It became a Book of the Month, was included in The Woollcott Reader (1935), and republished as a Pocket Overseas Edition for the troops during World War II, and then made a monthly selection by the Natural History Book Club. For the latter republication, the book had to be reset, as the original plates had been donated during the metal shortages of 1943–44. Smith desired to make changes to the book, which the publisher gave him a week to make.

The manuscript for Man and His Gods (1952), which Smith describes as "a simple story of man's changing ideas about himself and his place in nature," was declined by several publishers and reduced from about 275,000 to 250,000 words before it was accepted by Little, Brown and Company. The publisher made further cuts for length, which Smith approved of. It considers "man's ideas about the supernatural in the perspective of the evolution of western theology and philosophy from the ancient Egyptians to the nineteenth century", culminating in Darwin's theory of evolution and the reaction to it, including the thoughts of Thomas Henry Huxley and the relationship of modern thought to that of pre-evolutionist philosophers John Locke, David Hume and Immanuel Kant. Albert Einstein says in the foreword:

"The work is a broadly conceived attempt to portray man's fear-induced animistic and mythic ideas with all their far-flung transformations and interrelations. It relates the impact of these phantasmagorias on human destiny and the causal relationships by which they have come to be crystallized into organized religion. This is a biologist speaking whose scientific training has disciplined him in a grim objectivity rarely found in the pure historian."

From Fish to Philosopher (1953) explains how evolutionary history accounts for the seemingly bewildering mammalian kidney, in which water, salts, and small molecules are filtered from the blood into kidney tubules and then much of the water and salt and many of the small molecules are pumped back into the blood stream. He argues that vertebrates originated in fresh water, where water was drawn into their bodies by the osmotic pressure of their body fluids; their kidneys excreted the extra water while also retrieving their supply of small solutes.

Smith served on the board of trustees of Science Service, now known as Society for Science & the Public, from 1952–1955.

As a memorial to Smith in 1963 the New York Heart Association created the Homer W. Smith Award in Renal Physiology. Additionally, the American Society of Nephrology established The Homer Smith Award in 1964. The award is presented annually to an individual who has made outstanding contributions which fundamentally affect the science of nephrology, broadly defined, but not limited to, the pathobiology, cellular and molecular mechanisms and genetic influences on the functions and diseases of the kidney.

Homer Smith was married to Margaret Wilson, who was the daughter of Lily and James Robert Wilson from Spring City, Tennessee. His son was Homer Wilson Smith.

Views on religion
Smith attacked superstition and was critical of religious ideas. He was agnostic and an advocate of the Christ myth theory.

Publications

 * Kamongo, or The Lungfish and the Padre (1932)
 * The Kidney: Structure and Function in Health and Disease (1951)
 * Man and His Gods (1952) [with foreword by Albert Einstein]
 * From Fish to Philosopher (1953)

Quotes

 * "What engineer, wishing to regulate the composition of the internal environment of the body on which the function of every bone, gland, muscle, and nerve depends, would devise a scheme that operated by throwing the whole thing out 16 times a day and rely on grabbing from it, as it fell to earth, only those precious elements which he wanted to keep?"

title: Homer W. Smith


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Null hypothesis significance testing debate

 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. Carrp | Talk 01:54, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Null hypothesis significance testing debate

 * Delete. Looks like a poorly written high school essay. Oleg Alexandrov 01:14, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete … or worse. Paul August ☎ 02:32, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Unsalvageable. -- Rbellin|Talk 02:40, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete This s not a kind of essay!? (PISA?) --NewAtair Δ 12:43, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Turns a simple concept into a rambling cranky POV hash not suitable for addition to the Null Hypothesis page. I believe he was talking about the debate in psychology... maybe. Jok2000 13:33, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Article is indeed written in the form of an essay and it does not even attempt to explain what the debate is about. Jitse Niesen 14:57, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. As noted on the discussion page, this is not notable, it contains nothing new, what is does contain is of dubious merit, it is not NPOV and the transcript of the discussion page suggest that the author herself attempted to delete it only be thwarted by a gallant revert. Let us allow the author her wish for oblivion for this article.Velela 20:09, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Unwikified original research. Jonathunder 00:51, 2005 Mar 5 (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.