text:
Junkie (novel)

Junkie: Confessions of an Unredeemed Drug Addict, or Junky, is a 1953 novel by American Beat generation writer William S. Burroughs. The book follows "William Lee" as he struggles with his addiction to morphine and heroin. Burroughs based the story on his own experiences with drugs, and he published it under the pen name William Lee. Some critics view the character William Lee as simply Burroughs himself; in this reading, Junkie is a largely-autobiographical memoir. Others view Lee as a fictional character based on the author.

Junkie was Burroughs' first published novel (although he had previously written an unpublished novel with Jack Kerouac). It was initially published by Ace Books in 1953. Ace demanded substantial changes, censored some passages, and bundled it with a book about the Federal Bureau of Narcotics. This version was commercially successful, but did not receive critical attention when first released. In 1977, Penguin Books published an uncensored version of the novel under the alternate spelling Junky.

Critics have analyzed Junkie in the light of Burroughs' later and more experimental novels, such as Naked Lunch. The book is considered dry, lucid, and straightforward compared to those later works, which expand on Junkie's themes of drug addiction and control. The book's grotesque descriptions and hallucination imagery are also seen as precursors to his later work.

Background
William S. Burroughs was the grandson of William Seward Burroughs I, who founded the Burroughs Corporation. Burroughs' family was financially comfortable, and he received an allowance for most of his life. Burroughs volunteered for the army in 1942, but he was discharged for mental instability. In September 1943, he moved to New York, following his friends Lucien Carr and David Kammerer. Through them, he met Jack Kerouac and Allen Ginsberg; along with Burroughs himself, these writers would become the core figures of the Beat generation. While in New York, Burroughs became addicted to opioids, and increasingly committed crimes as the cost of his addiction exceeded his allowance.

Carr fatally stabbed Kammerer in 1944. Burroughs and Kerouac were briefly arrested for not reporting the homicide, then co-wrote a novel inspired by the event called And the Hippos Were Boiled in Their Tanks, which they were unable to get published. The novel was eventually published in 2008.

In 1945, Burroughs met Joan Vollmer, who would become his common-law wife. In October 1946, Burroughs and Vollmer left New York for Texas, where they had a child. They later moved to Mexico City in October 1949, partly to avoid legal risks around Burroughs' drug use.

Carr visited Burroughs in August 1950 and suggested he write a book about his experiences. Burroughs began writing Junkie while he was still regularly using heroin. By February 1951, he had quit heroin, but continued to smoke opium, which he believed carried minimal risk of addiction. Burroughs' preface to the novel refers to his addiction in the past tense. However, he remained dependent on opioids like methadone for the rest of his life.

Over the summer of 1951, Burroughs traveled to Ecuador with his friend Lewis Marker, hoping to start a romantic relationship. This experience would become the foundation of Burroughs' second novel Queer. Back in Mexico City, on September 6, 1951, Burroughs fatally shot Vollmer; he had attempted to shoot a glass balanced on her head while drunk. Although he had already written the first draft of Junkie, he would later state that he would not have become a writer if not for her death.

Publication

Burroughs mailed chapters of Junkie to Allen Ginsberg as he wrote. In his preface to the 1977 edition, Ginsberg claims that he and Burroughs collaboratively assembled the novel from these letters. He also notes that they continued this practice for Burroughs' subsequent novels Queer and Naked Lunch. Oliver Harris, a scholar and editor of Burroughs' works, disputes this story. He argues that Burroughs wrote most of the novel before sharing it with Ginsberg, and that the book "shows no signs of an interpersonal epistolary aesthetic."

Burroughs finished his initial manuscript by January 1, 1951. In April 1952, Ginsberg began the process of getting it published. Ginsberg sent copies of Junkie and Jack Kerouac's On the Road to his acquaintance Carl Solomon, whose uncle A. A. Wyn owned Ace Books. Solomon and Wyn rejected On The Road, but agreed to publish Junkie. Ginsberg later regretted signing a "ridiculous" contract with Ace Books, which he felt substantially underpaid Burroughs for the book's success.

Burroughs' manuscript was originally titled Junk. Ace Books renamed it to Junkie, out of a concern that Junk would imply the book itself was poor quality, and added the subtitle Confessions of an Unredeemed Drug Addict. Ace Books took advantage of Burroughs' provocative subject by creating what Harris calls an "especially lurid and voyeuristic" book cover, but also censored the book's language, removed passages, and added editors' notes and disclaimers. To avoid appearing to endorse recreational drug use, Wyn bundled Junkie with a reprint of Narcotics Agent, a 1941 book by Maurice Helbrant chronicling his work in the Federal Bureau of Narcotics. The publisher also asked Burroughs to include a prologue about his upbringing, to make it clear he did not come from a family of addicts and criminals.

Burroughs originally named the protagonist "William Dennison." This name had previously been used for Burroughs' analogs in two romans à clef: Jack Kerouac's first published novel The Town and the City, and Kerouac and Burroughs' unpublished collaboration And the Hippos Were Boiled in Their Tanks. Burroughs later renamed the protagonist "William Lee", after his mother's maiden name.

Before the novel was published, Ace Books asked Burroughs to add 40 more pages. Burroughs incorporated material he had intended for his follow-up novel Queer, which was written in the third-person. Although Burroughs edited these sections to match Junkie's first-person narration, this approach led to incongruities in the final text. Burroughs assembled the combined version by cutting up the original manuscripts and pasting them back together, a technique he would push much farther in his later books.

Later Editions
In the 1970s, Burroughs successfully sued Ace Books for breach of contract, arguing that he had never received sufficient royalties. The court reverted the novel's publishing rights, and James Grauerholz edited a new edition that Burroughs personally approved. This edition was published by Penguin Books in 1977. It restored material that had previously been censored by Ace Books and changed the title to Junky, with no subtitle.

In 2003, for the books's 50th anniversary, Penguin reissued the book as Junky: The Definitive Text of "Junk". This release included previously unpublished material from Allen Ginsberg's archives, in which Lee builds an "orgone accumulator" based on the writings of Wilhelm Reich. Burroughs had omitted this chapter in part to avoid being seen as a "lunatic".

Synopsis
"You become a narcotics addict because you do not have strong motivations in any other direction. Junk wins by default."

In a short prologue, William Burroughs describes his childhood as safe and comfortable, but marred by nightmares and hallucinations. Bored with suburban life and inspired by Jack Black's autobiography You Can't Win, he began committing petty crimes. Burroughs states that he failed to find steady work and was rejected from the army, but never needed money until he started using drugs. He describes addiction as the path of least resistance, not a conscious choice.

In 1940s New York, William Lee is offered a job selling stolen morphine. He tries the drug for the first time, keeps some syrettes, then sells the rest to a buyer named Roy, who warns him about the dangers of addiction. Over the next month, Lee uses up what he saved and becomes dependent. He and Roy convince a series of doctors to prescribe them morphine, but struggle to support their worsening addictions. Lee is arrested for using a fake name on a prescription; his wife bails him out and he receives a suspended sentence.

Lee experiences withdrawal symptoms, including hallucinations, and looks for an alternative to morphine. Roy connects him to a heroin supplier. The two initially pay for heroin by pickpocketing drunk subway riders. Later, Lee partners with a dealer named Bill Gains to buy, cut, and resell it, keeping some for himself each time. Lee forms a new social circle of addicts and customers, but as the police begin cracking down on the drug trade, he and his customers become increasingly paranoid. Gains decides his lifestyle has become too risky and checks himself into the Lexington Medical Center to treat his addiction. Lee attempts to quit heroin on his own, but fails and follows Gains to Lexington. He listens to other patients' stories of drug use and undergoes a methadone treatment, which he considers a success.

After four months of recovery, Lee travels to New Orleans. He visits a gay bar and is invited to have sex, only to be robbed instead. That evening, he relapses and soon resumes selling heroin. The police arrest him, and Lee suffers severe withdrawal symptoms in jail, including rapid weight loss. His lawyer arranges for him to visit a sanitorium for an experimental addiction cure. Lee then travels to Texas, where he tries to support himself by growing cotton. When this fails, he moves to Mexico City and relapses again, leaving his wife distraught.

Lee spends the next year in Mexico, repeatedly trying and failing to quit opioids. He begins drinking heavily to manage his addiction, which worsens his paranoia and gives him uremia. His doctor warns that he's drinking himself to death, and his wife leaves town with their kids. As anti-narcotics enforcement intensifies in the US, Bill Gains flees to Mexico to join Lee. He reveals that Roy was arrested and died in prison. Lee helps Gains acquire a supply of heroin, but it is so heavily adulterated that Gains nearly dies.

Lee mentions that he and his wife have separated. He reads about yage, a drug that may enable telepathy, and leaves Mexico City to seek it out, hoping it will fill the void that "junk" did not.

Style and themes
Junkie is sometimes considered an autobiographical memoir, in which William Lee is a stand-in for Burroughs himself. Others, including Beat scholar Jennie Skerl, interpret the book as a novel and William Lee as a fictionalized caricature. William Stull considers the novel a Bildungsroman similar to The Catcher in the Rye, while Oliver Harris argues that "the last genre to which Junkie belongs is that of the Künstlerroman."

Burroughs' writing style is dry and direct. His narrative voice is often compared to Dashiell Hammett's. Jack Kerouac favorably compared him to Ernest Hemingway. Oliver Harris notes that Burroughs' deadpan narration is often subtly ironic, as in Lee's observation that "You need a good bedside manner with doctors or you will get nowhere". The narration is interspersed with journalistic asides, which document various drugs, addiction treatments, laws, police procedures, and slang. In particular, Burroughs criticizes specific provisions in New York's public health laws and the federal Harrison Narcotics Tax Act. The narration frequently changes focus, reflecting Lee's nervousness and paranoia.

The book is written in the first-person, but it rarely explores Lee's psychology or motivations. Lee routinely breaks the law and commits acts of cruelty, but his actions are described in straightforward prose without excuses or explicit value judgments. While the novel does not condemn or justify Lee's actions, it does criticize overzealous law enforcement, doctors who try to control their patients, and anti-drug legislation aimed at "penalizing a state of being". Burroughs emphasizes the negative aspects of addiction and the pain of withdrawal, only briefly mentioning the pleasurable effects of drugs. Despite its pervasive criticism of power dynamics, the novel does not emphasize the control drug dealers have over their customers.

The novel describes opioid addicts with grotesque and dehumanizing language, such as comparing them to wooden puppets and deep-sea creatures. Lee claims that opioids reshape drug users on a cellular level, and that severe addicts are not recognizably human. Burroughs later expands on this motif in his follow-up novel Naked Lunch, in which heroin addicts metamorphose into surreal monsters. The book describes surreal hallucinations, such as giant insects swarming over New York and people transforming into crustaceans and plants. These sections have also been seen as precursors to Burroughs' later works.

The novel is structured around cycles of addiction and withdrawal, which become progressively more severe as Lee moves further South. The book ends with no clear resolution: Lee starts another cycle by heading South from Mexico City to find a new addictive substance, yage. The novel also follows the rise of police surveillance and decline of hipster subculture. As the police crack down on drugs, the community becomes increasingly paranoid and isolated. They no longer trust obscure jargon or their fellow addicts to protect them.

Sexuality
Lee describes heroin as "short-circuit[ing]" sexual desires, and withdrawal as a chance for those desires to reawaken. In one scene, Lee experiences a spontaneous orgasm while in jail, unable to satisfy his addiction. Although the novel rarely mentions his sexuality, Lee is gay, as was Burroughs himself. When Lee does seek out sexual encounters, he asserts his masculinity, derides gay bars, and expresses revulsion toward effeminate men, whom he lambasts as "ventriloquists’ dummies who have moved in and taken over the ventriloquist". In Burroughs' follow-up novel Queer, Lee's sexual frustrations and anxieties receive much more focus. Burroughs' preface to Queer suggests that, in Junkie, Lee's sexuality was "held in check by junk".

Omissions
Despite their influence on Burroughs' writing, the novel does not mention Allen Ginsberg or Jack Kerouac. In contrast, contemporary works by Kerouac and Ginsberg prominently featured Burroughs.

Lee's wife abruptly disappears from the story during the Mexico City section. In reality, Burroughs fatally shot Joan Vollmer; he was allowed to leave Mexico after the courts ruled the shooting an accident, not a homicide. A. A. Wyn asked Burroughs to add additional material explaining her character's disappearance, but he refused to write about the shooting. Instead, he suggested they remove all references to her from the book, and offered to invent a fictional car accident if Wyn insisted that she had to die. Wyn relented and published the book with no explanation for her absence, besides a brief reference to Lee and his wife being separated.

Reception
Ace Books printed 150,000 copies of Junkie, and the novel sold 113,000 copies in its first year. Despite this commercial success, it was not professionally reviewed or analyzed when first released.

In retrospect, Tony Tanner considers the novel a foundation for Burroughs' later experimentalism. He notes that "Later, [Burroughs] made the business of drug addiction into a vast encompassing metaphor; in this book he looks at it, with a remarkable cool lucidity, simply as the dominant fact of his life." Mario Vargas Llosa wrote that while he did not care for Burroughs's subsequent experimental fiction, he admired the more straightforward Junkie as "an accurate description of what I believe to be the literary vocation". Carlo Gébler found the novel riveting and felt it exemplified Burroughs' unflinching writing style, saying that "in a world where writers more and more want their readers to believe they are nice people, Burroughs was a rare example of real authorial honesty". He called Junkie "the only book I know that doesn't glamorize heroin".

Beat scholar Jennie Skerl considers the novel a more successful portrait of hipster subculture than Norman Mailer's essay The White Negro. She notes that Burroughs displays a deeper familiarity with the subculture's slang, and correctly identifies that drug use is central to the hipster worldview. Norman Mailer himself considered Junkie a well-written potboiler. Will Self argues that the novel fails to insightfully analyze addiction, in part because Burroughs was deluded about his own relationship with drugs. However, he considers it an enduring portrayal of alienation.

Burroughs himself later criticized the novel. In 1965, he commented "I don't feel the results were at all spectacular. Junky is not much of a book, actually. I knew very little about writing at that time."

title: Junkie (novel)


text:
Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Norway)

The Royal Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Norwegian Det kongelige utenriksdepartement or Utenriksdepartementet; Det kongelege utanriksdepartementet or Utanriksdepartementet; UD) is the foreign ministry of the Kingdom of Norway. It was established on June 7, 1905, the same day the Parliament of Norway (Storting) decided to dissolve the personal union with Sweden.

The ministry is headed by Minister of Foreign Affairs, currently Espen Barth Eide, who is a minister in the Støre cabinet that has governed since 14 October 2021.

The ministry also holds a position of Minister of International Development. This position was established by the second Willoch cabinet in 1983, and existed until October 2013 when it was abolished by the Solberg cabinet and the foreign minister became the sole head of the ministry. The position was restored on January 17, 2018, when the Liberal party joined the Solberg government. The current Minister of International Development is Anne Beathe Tvinnereim from the Centre Party.

History
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs was established on the same day that Norway declared the dissolution of the union with Sweden: June 7, 1905. Although diplomats could not present credentials to foreign governments until the Swedish king formally renounced his right to the Norwegian throne, a number of unofficial representatives worked on the provisional government's behalf until the first Norwegian ambassador, Hjalmar Christian Hauge, sought accreditation by the United States Secretary of State Elihu Root on November 6, 1905.

The initial purposes of the newly formed Foreign Ministry were to represent Norway's interests through diplomatic channels, and to provide consular services for Norwegian shipping and commerce overseas. In 1906, the Storting decided to establish six embassies in Europe, with two more in the Americas: one in the United States and one in Argentina. 20 consular offices were also opened.

During World War I, the foreign ministry was confronted with unprecedented challenges in maintaining neutrality for Norway, in particular in order to protect its merchant fleet.

In 1922, the ministry was consolidated and reorganised to ensure fuller cooperation between the diplomatic and consular branches. The reorganization included the formation of a designated career path for diplomats that included completion of a university entrance examination and professional experience from international trade. The economic hardship of the times forced austerity measures at the ministry for the next several years.

When Norway was invaded by Nazi Germany in 1940, the government fled to the United Kingdom and reconstituted in exile in Bracknell, outside London. Kingston House in London was later used. The government moved back to Norway following the peace in 1945.

After the end of World War II, Norway was a founding member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and the United Nations, the latter having Norwegian Trygve Lie as inaugural Secretary-General. Norway was also part of the first slate of non-permanent members to the United Nations Security Council.

Organisation
The Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs is organised with 110 foreign missions and three subordinate organisations: Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation (Norad), Norwegian Agency for Exchange Cooperation (Norec) and the development country investment fund Norfund. The Ministry and foreign missions have a total staff of approx. 2,400.

Name
The formal name of the ministry is the Royal Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Det kongelige utenriksdepartement with the short form Utenriksdepartementet, and Det kongelege utanriksdepartementet with the short form Utanriksdepartementet), abbreviated as UD. The ministry is also sometimes known as the Royal Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Det kongelige norske utenriksdepartement or Det kongelege norske utanriksdepartementet). In everyday speech in Norway it is usually known under its short form, with the longer forms reserved for formal letters and documents.

The political level
Minister of Foreign Affairs Anniken Huitfeldt Minister of International Development Anne Beathe Tvinnereim
 * State Secretaries for Foreign Affairs Henrik Thune, Eivind Vad Petersson (both Labour).
 * State Secretary for International Development Bjørg Sandkjær (Centre Party)
 * Political Advisor Eirin Kristin Kjær (Labour)
 * Secretariat of the Minister of Foreign Affairs
 * Secretariat of the Minister of International Development
 * Foreign Service Control Unit
 * Communication Unit
 * Legal Adviser

The operational level
The top public servant is the Secretary General (utenriksråd) with an Assistant Secretary General as substitute (the latter also with a special responsibility for international development issues).

The Ministry currently has nine departments, each headed by a Director General (known in Norwegian as ekspedisjonssjef)
 * Department for European Affairs and International Trade
 * Department for Security Policy and the High North
 * Department for Regional Affairs
 * Department for Multilateral Affairs
 * Department for Sustainable Development
 * Department for Culture, Business Relations and Protocol
 * Legal Affairs Department
 * Human and Financial Resources Department
 * Services Department

Subsidiaries

 * Norfund
 * Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation (Norad)
 * Norec

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

title: Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Norway)


text:
Humanzee

The humanzee (sometimes chuman, manpanzee or chumanzee) is a hypothetical hybrid of chimpanzee and human, thus a form of human–animal hybrid. Serious attempts to create such a hybrid were made by Soviet biologist Ilya Ivanovich Ivanov in the 1920s, and possibly by researchers in China in the 1960s, though neither succeeded.

Etymology
The portmanteau humanzee for a human–chimpanzee hybrid appears to have entered usage in the 1980s.

Possibility
The possibility of hybrids between humans and other apes has been entertained since at least the medieval period; Saint Peter Damian (11th century) claimed to have been told of the offspring of a human woman who had mated with an ape, and so did Antonio Zucchelli, an Italian Franciscan capuchin friar who was a missionary in Africa from 1698 to 1702, and Sir Edward Coke in "The Institutes of the Lawes of England". Chimpanzees and humans are closely related. Genetic animal hybrids with different chromosome numbers decrease the probability of viable offspring and rarely occur in the first cross. Evolutionary biologists have found evidence that hybridization between humans and pan troglodyte resulted in some varieties of archaic humans. Chimpanzees and bonobos are separate species, but hybridization has been documented. Genetic similarity, and thus the chances of successful hybridization, is not always correlated with visual appearances. Domestication and backcrossing has been found to increase fertility in subsequent generations.

All great apes have similar genetic chromosome structure. Humans have one pair fewer chromosomes than other apes, as humans have 23 chromosome pairs, while all other apes have 24, with ape chromosomes 12 and 13 fused in the human genome into a large chromosome (which contains remnants of the centromere and telomeres of the ancestral 12 and 13). Chromosomes 6, 13, 19, 21, 22, and X are structurally the same in all great apes. Chromosomes 3, 11, 14, 15, 18, and 20 match among gorillas, chimpanzees, and humans. Chimpanzees and humans match on 1, 2p, 2q, 5, 7–10, 12, 16, and Y as well. Some older references include Y as a match among gorillas, chimpanzees, and humans, but chimpanzees, bonobos, and humans have recently been found to share a large transposition from chromosome 1 to Y not found in other apes.

The degree of chromosomal similarity among apes is roughly equivalent to that found in equines. Interfertility of horses and donkeys is common, although sterility of the offspring (mules) is more common. Complexities and partial sterility pertain to horse–zebra hybrids, or zorses, whose chromosomal disparity is very wide, with horses typically having 32 chromosome pairs and zebras between 16 and 23 depending on species. The Przewalski's horse (Equus ferus przewalskii) with 33 chromosome pairs, and the domestic horse (E. f. caballus) with 32 pairs, have been found to be interfertile, and produce semi-fertile offspring: male hybrids can breed with female domestic horses.

In 1977, researcher J. Michael Bedford discovered that human sperm could penetrate the protective outer membranes of a gibbon egg. Bedford's paper also stated that human spermatozoa would not even attach to the zona surface of non-hominoid primates (baboon, rhesus monkey, and squirrel monkey), concluding that although the specificity of human spermatozoa is not confined to Homo sapiens sapiens alone, it is probably restricted to the Hominoidea. However, in the opposite direction of closely related species, it has been found that human sperm binds to gorilla oocytes with almost the same ease as to human ones.

Hybridization between members of different, but related genera is sometimes possible, as in the case of cama (camel and llama), wholphin (common bottlenose dolphin and false killer whale), and some felid hybrids. Even hybridization between different families, as in the case of the sturddlefish, is possible (albeit exceedingly rare) provided the parent species are genetically similar enough to one another.

Reports of attempted hybridization
There have been no scientifically verified specimens of a human–chimpanzee hybrid, but there have been substantiated reports of unsuccessful attempts to create one in the Soviet Union in the 1920s, and various unsubstantiated reports on similar attempts during the second half of the 20th century.

Ilya Ivanov was the first person to attempt to create a human–chimpanzee hybrid by artificial insemination. Ivanov outlined his idea as early as 1910 in a presentation to the World Congress of Zoologists in Graz. In the 1920s, Ivanov carried out a series of experiments, culminating in inseminating three female chimpanzees with human sperm, but he failed to achieve a pregnancy. These initial experiments took place in French Guinea. (For comparison with known cama statistics, in the case of male camel–female guanaco cross the probability that insemination would lead to pregnancy was approximately 1/6. ) In 1929, he attempted to organize a set of experiments involving nonhuman ape sperm and human volunteers, but was delayed by the death of his last orangutan. The next year, he fell under political criticism from the Soviet government and was sentenced to exile in the Kazakh SSR; he worked there at the Kazakh Veterinary-Zootechnical Institute and died of a stroke two years later.

In the 1970s, a performing chimpanzee named Oliver was popularized as a possible "mutant" or even a human–chimpanzee hybrid. Claims that Oliver had 47 chromosomes—midpoint between the normal 46 for humans and 48 for chimpanzees—were disproven after an examination of his genetic material at the University of Chicago in 1996. Oliver's cranial morphology, ear shape, freckles, and baldness fall within the range of variability exhibited by the common chimpanzee. Results of further studies with Oliver were published in the American Journal of Physical Anthropology.

In the 1980s, there were reports of an experiment in human–chimpanzee crossbreeding conducted in China in 1967, and on the planned resumption of such experiments. In 1981, Ji Yongxiang, head of a hospital in Shenyang, was reported as claiming to have been part of a 1967 experiment in Shengyang in which a chimpanzee female had been impregnated with human sperm. According to this account, the experiment was cut short by the Cultural Revolution, with the responsible scientists sent off to farm labour and the three-months pregnant chimpanzee dying from neglect. According to Timothy McNulty of Chicago Tribune, the report was based on an article in the Wenhui Bao newspaper of Shanghai. Li Guong of the genetics research bureau at the Chinese Academy of Sciences was cited as confirming both the existence of the experiment prior to the Cultural Revolution and the plans to resume testing.

In 2019, unconfirmed reports surfaced that a team of researchers led by Professor Juan Carlos Izpisua Belmonte from the Salk Institute for Biological Studies in the U.S. successfully produced the first human-monkey chimera. Belmonte and others had previously produced pig and sheep embryos containing a small percentage of human cells. As with those embryos, the human-monkey chimeras were reportedly only allowed to develop for a few weeks. Although development was stopped prior to the formation of a nervous system or organs, avoiding more severe ethical concerns, the research was reportedly carried out in China to avoid legal issues. Due to the much larger evolutionary distance between humans and monkeys versus humans and chimpanzees, it is considered unlikely that true human-monkey hybrids could be brought to term. However, it is feasible that human-compatible organs for transplantation could be grown in these chimeras.

Evidence for early hominin hybridization
There is evidence for a complex speciation process for the Pan–Homo split which may include hybridization, or what is know as reticulate evolution. Different chromosomes appear to have split at different times, suggesting that large-scale hybridization  may have taken place over a period of as much as four million years leading up to the emergence of the distinct human and chimpanzee lineages as late as six million years ago.

The similarity of the X chromosome in humans and chimpanzees might suggest hybridization taking place as late as four million years ago. However, other mechanisms such as natural selection on the X chromosome in the chimpanzee–human last common ancestor may also explain the apparent short divergence time in the X chromosome.

It is hypothesized that the peculiar features of Homo naledi may be due to them being descendants of a relatively recent hybridization event between Homo and Australopithecus.

title: Humanzee


text:
Talk:Mars Climate Orbiter

The metric flaw
The loss of the MCO has become a case study frequently cited in a software engineering context, so I thought it worthwhile to update the article to correct some common misunderstandings. I've cited my references. My impression from the presentations I've heard is that it was a single *constant* which was computed incorrectly by an engineer (who forgot to include the necessary conversion factor) -- which, for the case studies, means that compiler technology to automatically do unit checking or inference likely wouldn't have helped here. It was just a bad "magic number" that was input. However, the references I can find refer to an "equation" not just a bad constant, so that is the language I have used in my update. C. Scott Ananian 23:34, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

More details (since this was reverted yesterday, presumably before my comments here were read): See page 7 of the cited AAS paper. There is a JPL-internal memo (JPL D-18441, November 1999) that presumably has the precise details, but I don't have access to it. C. Scott Ananian 15:43, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

 * In your last edit summary, you said "revert. This is a direct quote, from the single reference I added. (pg 7) See discussion page."
 * You do know how to indicate a direct quote, don't you? You know, those little squiggly things called quotation marks—which I just used to enclose your edit summary.  See also Manual of Style.
 * Of course, not only do I not see any of those quotation marks in this section of the article, I also do not see any direct quote from the cited page. At least nothing longer than a word or two.
 * The biggest problem in your edits is the statement "The conversion factor from pound-seconds to newton-seconds was buried in the original equation and not immediately identifiable, and so it was not included in the updated equation."
 * This gives the misleading impression that a conversion factor was there in the MCO software, but just didn't get used. It wasn't, however.  All there was in the MCO software was a formula which would give results consistent with its input.  It probably would have worked equally well for gravitational fps units an both input and output, or for SI units as both input and output.
 * The conversion factor was only built into the formula used in different software, the software used on the Mars Global Surveyor, which was used as a pattern for the MCO software. It wasn't ever in the MCO software.
 * This article never was written as if it were discussing some "constant"; rather, it discussed the output of the calculations using the formula.  A variable, whose value depends on the input.  GIGO, etc. Gene Nygaard 18:10, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Your response seems needlessly personal. Here is the relevant paragraph from the reference I have been citing (Euler, E.E., Jolly, S.D., and Curtis, H.H. "The Failures of the Mars Climate Orbiter and Mars Polar Lander: A Perspective from the People Involved." Proceedings of Guidance and Control 2001, American Astronautical Society, paper AAS 01-074, 2001, page 7):

 * "The equations used to make the I-bit calculation are vendor supplied and in English units (in the case of this vendor). Although starting from MGS-heritage software, the coded MGS thruster equation had to be changed because of the different size RCS thruster that MCO employed (same vendor). As luck would have it, the 4.45 conversion factor, although correctly included in the MGS equation by the previous development team, was not immediately identifiable by inspection (being buried in the equation) or commented in the code in an obvious way that the MCO team recognized it. Thus, although the SIS required SI units, the new thruster equation was inserted in place of the MGS equation - without the conversion factor."

I do not believe that the "impression" I gave is misleading: according to this primary source, the conversion factor was in the original MGS equation, but not in the replacement equation. I don't really think a direct quotation of this paragraph is necessary in the article, but I'll be happy to include it if you feel this is appropriate. In fact, misunderstanding of the root flaw here is very wide-spread (google will turn up lots of sloppy quotes of the investigation board's simplified explanation), and my edits were specifically made to ensure that Wikipedia did not repeat the error. C. Scott Ananian 16:36, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

 * What error? There was no conversion factor in the MCO software.  It really is that simple. Your source says so too.  Don't be throwing out some alphabet soup about soem MGS software which wasn't used on the MCO.  The Mars Global Surveyor made it to Mars and accomplished its mission five years ago, and is now on an extended mission, using that software which did include the conversion factor. Gene Nygaard 00:46, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

I think we agree, then. As you say, there is no conversion factor in the MCO software. As you also say, there was a conversion factor in the MGS software. This particular piece of MCO and MGS software ("SM_FORCES") is identical on both craft except for the equation for the RCS thrusters (the MSOP readiness review, page 65 shows that SM_FORCES is a minor modification of MGS software). According to Euler et al, page 7, the conversion factor was "buried in the equation" and thus not "immediately identifiable", and it was not "commented in the code in an obvious way". The sentence from the article we seem to be discussing is:
 * The conversion factor from pound-seconds to newton-seconds was buried in the original equation and not immediately identifiable, and so it was not included in the updated equation.

It seems that we agree that, as this sentence states, the conversion factor "was not included in the updated equation". C. Scott Ananian 22:44, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

 * But it is still badly worded, confusing and misleading, and wrong. When I have mor time I'll try to figure it out. The "velocity change" stuff appears to me to be misplaced and part of the confusion; that's just another exacerbating factor, isn't it?  Not a cause of the problem, but something that might have detected the existence of the problem--is that right?  If it is right or not, the transitions and distinctions need to be made clearer. Gene Nygaard 01:19, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

As i have it the original program would have adjusted the thrust, the explorer may use a program on converting factors now, that they couldn't find the conversion factor then doesn't mean they found it now, in the initial configuration it may have been an 'exacerbating' factor and "alphabet-soupe" should remain a reasonable argument.. in this case i think it is.80.57.243.16 00:12, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I was wondering about the statement : "The metric mixup which destroyed the craft was caused by a software error back on Earth.". It seems to me that the software did what it was told to do. I'm more inclined to call it "a programming error". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Apodam (talk • contribs) 08:59, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Cost
What was the cost of the mission?--155.13.48.17 21:42, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry for deleting this post earlier. Anyway I've added a section answering this. Dan Gluck 18:29, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Did Lockheed Martin pay for it, since they apparently were responsible for the error that made the mission fail? --129.240.79.35 (talk) 21:14, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

English Imperial Units
Hello Gene,

I sort of thought my change would provoke a response from someone!

There are a few good reasons why it should be left as "Imperial" and that "English" should be dispensed with.

 * 1) If you click on English units you will be redirected to Imperial units. This in itself indicates that the preferred term is Imperial.
 * 2) While English Units may be a common term in the US, it is actually uncommon internationally. Here in Australia it is referred to as Imperial.
 * 3) The term also denotes that England still uses such units of measurement. This is partly true but the nation is pretty much Metrified.

I have reverted the article to say Imperial, but I will leave it up to you to make the final change back to English if you so desire, and if you do not think my reasoning is sound. One Salient Oversight 23:10, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Here are my comments
 * The current Imperial units page is a mess--sometimes distinguishing those used in the British empire--after the United States opted out--and sometimes including the United States.
 * In none of the cases where there is a difference between British English and U.S. English or either of them and Australian English or Canadian English or whatever is the title of a Wikipedia article to be taken as an indication of any "preferred term".
 * There is another U.S. customary units article.
 * What we need is one English units article that is more comprehensive, with the existing ones more limited.
 * Like I pointed out in my edit, nobody uses Roman units any more, but they are still Roman units. In other words, these designations are based on history and derivation--not on current usage.
 * Unlike the United Kingdom, it is legal to sell draft beer by the liter in the United States. Note also that we use the real he-man sized liters, which only take 3.8 to make a gallon, rather than those dinky little litres the British as well as you in Oz use, which take 4.5 to make a gallon. ;-)
 * Most of the units, such as the avoirdupois pound of mass invented in 1303, are actually pre-imperial. (Or post-imperial, in reference to the Roman empire from which these units derived.) However, even in common usage outside the United States, "imperial" is most often used only for those units which remained in use in the British empire after the Weights and Measures Act of 1924 (in other words, not including Queen Anne's wine gallon and the Winchester bushel, for example).
 * Pound-force seconds, OTOH, are probably best classified as post-imperial. There were never used in the days of the British empire.  (Pounds force were never well defined units before the 20th century, and these rocketry units of impulse only came along well into the century.)
 * This article is about usage in the United States--and in the United States, "imperial" is used only to distinguish those volume units introduced in 1924 (the best the Brits could come up with for a decimal system, even 30 years after the metric system, was to take a unit that had been the volume of 8 pounds of whatever and make it the volume of 10 pounds of water). Gene Nygaard 04:06, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well I'm from the UK and I didn't understand what english units were until reading this discussion page, also at the top of the article it cites imperial measurements and later on its then referred to as english. Can someone make their mind up once and for all please. 84.68.230.185 21:06, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

The article was using both imperial and english units, in the interests of consistency i've changed the english reference to be imperial. Looking at the wikipedia article on "english units" refers to it as being a mostly american term. Seeing as both terms are valid as they contain the "pound" unit of measurement (which was the one incorrectly converted) and given that wikipedia is a global entity, it makes sense to me that imperial units should be used as it is known both inside and outside of the USA. I'm canadian and I'd never heard the term "english unit" until reading this article. Shad0w 23:18, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Most US citizens, as opposed to Canadians, would not even know what was meant by the term "imperial units". Wikipedia says, correctly, "Imperial units are not used in the United States. The customary units in use there are historically derived from units which were in use in England at the time of settlement. The measurements of most of these units in England itself were subsequently changed." The few who do understand the term may well take offense at the idea, as I do, that they owe their customary units to the British empire, when they are simply descended from the customary English units at the time of settlement, hence the US tendency to refer to US customary units as also being "English" units, in the same sense that they refer to their language as "English", although it too differs from British and other "imperial" varieties of English. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.52.140.5 (talk) 01:40, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

This article should absolutely not say "Imperial Units." The United States does not, and has never, used Imperial Units. The units in use in the US are "US customary units." Saying "Imperial Units" is simply wrong. Even the wiki page for US customary units notes that they are similar but not identical. I have changed the article accordingly. Somerandomguy321 (talk) 00:46, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * This is entirely correct. The term "English units" is a vague and non-technical way of referring to US customary units or Imperial units, or both. US customary units and Imperial units are not necessarily the same. It's unlikely than an American company working with NASA would have been using the Imperial system of measures. They were almost certainly using the US customary system. And that's what the article should reflect, except for verbatim quotes where a reliable source used bad terminology (which is itself of interest, as further indication of ongoing confusion and likely future mishaps). It's unfortunate that the wrong units were used, and it is also unfortunate that even the technical professionals tasked with investigating the screw-up couldn't get the terminology right. But that's no excuse for Wikipedia to get it wrong. The ground-based calculations were in US customary units, and except for quoting sources, the article should not refer to the units as either Imperial (incorrect), or English (vague). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.68.134.1 (talk) 18:41, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

The block quotation from the MCO Mishap Investigation Board contains misquotes: In two places "Imperial units" should be "English units", "newton-seconds" should be "Newton-seconds", and "newtons" should be "Newtons". The paragraph appears on page 16 of the MCO Report. Quotes must be exact in wording, spelling, and capitalization. Among Americans, like the ones who wrote this report, "English units" is understood as short for "U.S. customary units". No American engineer would call them "Imperial units" because Imperial units are a system that uses the same names but some of the units are just different enough to screw you over if you confuse the two. So if you think leaving "English units" is too confusing, either put [U.S. customary units] with square brackets to indicate that you're changing the quote or eliminate the quote and paraphrase. Kktkktkkt (talk) 06:06, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Would have been?
The second paragraph of the lead section says "The spacecraft would have been destroyed by atmospheric stresses and friction at this low altitude." It would have been destroyed? Don't we mean it was destroyed? --Angr (t·c) 15:40, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Fixed.

Shouldn't it be more along the lines of "The spacecraft would most likely have been destroyed by atmospheric stresses and friction at this low altitude." as it is an unobserved event. It is possible that the spacecraft bounced off the atmosphere and was not "destroyed" but I guess that is really nitpicking and that the craft was rendered useless by the fault.

Repercussions
This infamous engineering fault was perpetrated by Lockheed Martin. What were the repercussions of this error for LM? Did they have to compensate NASA for the damages in any way? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.89.0.118 (talk) 22:53, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

All we know is that the managers at NASA were a bunch of jerks for ignoring the problem!! :( :( :( — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.0.162.183 (talk) 03:33, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

I was told by somebody from JPL who was intimately involved (whose name and duties I shall not reveal) that

1. One of the navigators noticed a discrepancy of a factor of about 4.4 in some of the intermediate results. Having occurred during the golden age of Goldin, i.e., "Faster, Better, Cheaper" (which two do you want?), the navigator had insufficient training to recognize the significance of this discrepancy. It was reported, but the navigator was told "That's not your job! Get back to work!"

2. A navigator (I don't know whether it was the same navigator) later reported that calculations indicated the spacecraft would arrive too low at Mars. Again the response was "That's not your job! Get back to work!"

3. There was later a five-hour meeting of navigators, navigation software engineers, spacecraft engineers, propulsion team, and managers. Navigators wanted to do TCM-5, which was in the schedule. Propulsion engineers were afraid to light the engines, after what happened to Mars Observer. Eventually it was agreed to do TCM-5. The one who related this timeline to me was in the meeting.

4. Then the managers went off to dinner by themselves and decided not to do it.

Metric or imperial???
All the time, I've always thought that NASA only uses metric units since that time... As evidence from there website, when imperial measure are present, they are only shown as secondary in paranthesis...

So if NASA is really using metric now, there's a mistake in the article, wich state that NASA sitck with imperial.

Just in case there was a mistake in the article!

--Jerem © 2002-2006 (talk) 20:38, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll second that. I've heard that NASA has actually switched to using metric on new projects since then. Someone should really verify this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.205.46.220 (talk) 12:16, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Currently, this article claims that NASA switched back to Imperial unist. I think that this statement is incorrect. The NASA webpage http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2007/08jan_metricMoon.htm clearly says that (at least for future moon-missions), NASA wants to use exclusively metric units. The only source currently given in the article to support the claim that NASA switched back to Imperial units is http://acquisition.jpl.nasa.gov/Facilities_Design_Standards_DocID_45413%5B10%5D.pdf which as far as I understand it only referes to the construction of new buildings of the NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory but not to NASA as a whole, and especially it seems not to refer to the use of Imperial umits for space missions.--Stacalusa (talk) 17:52, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Since nobody objected, I deleted the (unsourced) claim that NASA switched back to imperial units for its missions.--Stacalusa (talk) 05:11, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

 There you go, the source. Nicholas.tan (talk) 04:40, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Nasa generally uses the metric system for new projects. So the article is incorrect. Udo Held (talk) 23:17, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Lockheed Martin
Can someone make it relevant to this article or at least MENTION it? The only thing about Lockheed Martin on the page is under the categories! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.14.172.136 (talk) 19:32, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Improperly Low Altitude
I suggest we changed the statement to "They fucked up and it blew up in their faces". 121.45.102.195 (talk) 02:30, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

What size font do you suggest we use? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bagmouse7 (talk • contribs) 05:09, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

The spacecraft's velocity
It is claimed that: "The complete burn sequence lasted 42 minutes bringing the spacecraft into a Hohmann transfer orbit, with a final velocity of 5.5 km/s relative to Mars, and sending the probe into a 669 million kilometer trajectory." A fast calculation leads to the result that the spacecraft should have travel for more than 100 million seconds which are about 3 years. Yet, it arrived to Mars after less then a year. How can that be? 132.68.59.201 (talk) 13:49, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Earth and Mars are orbiting the Sun. The "669 million kilometer trajectory" is the distance from Earth to Mars plus that all three bodies (Earth, MCO, and Mars) swung part way around the Sun in the 285.56 days that it took the MCO to coast from Earth to Mars.

 * The article reports the launch as 1998-12-11 18:45:51 and the initial burn lasted 42 minutes. That means the beginning of the coast phase to Mars was at 1998-12-11 19:27:51. The end of the coast phase was at 1999-09-23 09:00:46 when the MCO did the main engine burn to slow it down to the correct velocity to start orbiting Mars. Thus, the coast phase lasted 285.56 days.

 * Let's assume the "669 million kilometer trajectory" is only the coast phase. That works out to an average flight speed of 27.1149 km/second to travel 669 million km in 285.56 days.

 * The statement "a final velocity of 5.5 km/s relative to Mars" was the speed at the start of the coast phase. Some of the resultant true velocity within the Solar System is that the MCO approached Mars from Earth and the rest would be that Mars' average orbital speed is 24.077 km/s. Both Earth's and the Sun's gravity would slow the MCO down from the initial 5.5 km/s as it coasted and towards the end of the coast the MCO would accelerate as it came within reach of Mars' gravity.

 * The average orbital speed of Earth around the Sun is 29.78 km/s. We don't know the the angle or direction of the launch off Cape Canaveral and so don't know the actual speed of the MCO at the start of the coast phase other than it was "5.5 km/s relative to Mars."

 * Overall, the numbers in the article are reasonable and consistent. To improve the article we'd need to find reliable sources that better explain the mission. For example, I had to make an assumption above that "669 million kilometer trajectory" applied only to the coast phase. I suspect we are close as the MCO went from launch to coast in 42 minutes and the burn that ended the coast lasted 16 minutes. The initial orbits around Mars were not circular for some missions. It took many orbits and small adjustments to achieve the final circular orbit. I assume the MCO would have done the same and suspect "669 million kilometer trajectory" includes these orbits. --Marc Kupper|talk 17:01, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mars Climate Orbiter. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110903231458/http://www.ampacisp.co.uk/products_1.php to http://www.ampacisp.co.uk/products_1.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:46, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

After disintegration
So what happened after the disintegration (burned up in the Mars atmosphere immediately, continued on (just brushed the atmosphere at high speed), or went into a (decaying) orbit)?

Shouldn't that be included in the article? --Mortense (talk) 17:47, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

 * I have the same question as Mortense. I went to Reference 1, Mars Climate Orbiter Mishap Investigation Board Phase I Report (1999), to see if it had an answer. All I found was, "As a result, MCO either was destroyed in the atmosphere or re-entered heliocentric space after leaving Mars’ atmosphere." It is understandable that the board that prepared the report didn't investigate further. The board's focus was, understandably, elsewhere. The urgent need was to prevent such mishaps. But later on, there may be some document that answers Mortense's question. Can anyone find it? Oaklandguy (talk) 07:39, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

 * The report states that it either plunged into the atmosphere or it bounce off it. Either way, the spacecraft was damaged enough to die. Rowan Forest (talk) 01:51, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

 * That fully agrees with my understanding of the quote. Mortense and I have a different question: We'd like to know which of those occurred. As you recognize, that detail is far less important than the fact of failure; far less important than how to prevent future failures of this sort. But it's just a fact we're curious about. Also, in my original post, I didn't do the indent correctly -- you fixed that -- thanks! Oaklandguy (talk) 02:35, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Clarification within Cause of Failure section thoughts
> At this altitude, the spacecraft would likely have skipped violently off the denser-than-expected atmosphere,[citation needed] and it was either destroyed in the atmosphere, or re-entered heliocentric space.

Specifically referencing "The spacecraft would likely have skipped violently off the denser-than-expected atmosphere"

The statement itself (which was given the [citation needed] tag in 2018 because there is no direct reference in the 1999 mishap report) is not technically incorrect to my understanding of orbital physics. Reading the report, no judgement is directly passed on which of the two outcomes was "likely" as written in the article, nor any language directly stating the intensity of such a maneuver. To my knowledge, yes, it is possible, and yes, it would be "violent" but the statement in the article is speculating beyond the scope of listed references. I personally would love to find a source that validates the [citation needed], at least in part, but I think that the statement should be modified to be "At this altitude, the spacecraft may have skipped off the denser-than-expected atmosphere,[citation needed] and it was either destroyed in the atmosphere, or re-entered heliocentric space." or just an outright removal of the statement about the potential skip.

Just wanted people's thoughts before making an edit to the article. Javacat1 (talk) 16:45, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Italic 5.126.39.61 (talk) 08:59, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Mars Climate Orbiter


text: User talk:69.113.95.71

title: User talk:69.113.95.71


text:
Talk:Butch Cassidy

Genealogical info
I reverted the edit stating that Butch was born in England, as he most certainly was not. His parents arrived (separately) in the US in the 1850s, when they were still children. You can find them listed among the handcart pioneer companies of the 1850s, and in the 1860 Utah census. They married in 1865 in Utah. I don't have time to fill in all the details at the moment, but have linked to several of the many, many historical websites that state these basic facts. 11 Arlington (talk) 05:27, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

addendum: added some sources for parents' arrival and marriage. 11 Arlington (talk) 18:00, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I have removed the long and somewhat confusing paragraph about Butch Cassidy's paternal ancestry going back three generations. While this is interesting stuff for us historians and genealogists, it seems to dwell unnecessarily on facts not directly related to the subject of the article--and may have caused the confusion of the contributor who incorrectly edited the article to say Robert Leroy Parker was born in England. (Probably confused him with his grandfather Robert Parker?) The fact that his GREAT-grandfather Thomas arrived in Utah 1867 has nothing to do with Butch Cassidy's birthplace or circumstances. I'm also not sure why it's important to detail grandfather Robert Parker's boyhood troubles with the law; again, interesting but not particularly relevant. We could give equal time to Butch's mother's family, tracing their Scottish origins and mentioning that his grandmother was a midwife and one great-grandfather worked as caretaker at a Scottish castle, but again, I don't think it's especially relevant to Butch Cassidy's own life. 11 Arlington (talk) 04:09, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Untitled
who are u Who did the studies?-FZ 23:11, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Outlaw Trail Request
Can someone do a piece on the Outlaw Trail? That would be interesting. I tried to put up a request but couldn't navigate my way to the proper category. Sorry, I'm new here. --YellowLeftHand 09:23, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Death
I feel that
 * no remains with DNA matching them to the living relatives of Parker and Longabaugh have yet been discovered.

should be re-written
 * remains with DNA matching them ... Longabaugh have yet to be found (discovered?)

for better flow, but id like to get at least one person who agrees with me

PAX --- 71.108.37.108 07:28, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Roberty Leroy Parkers name should be removed since that name has not been proven real, by reliable sources such as birth certificates.

 * I'll have to agree with this above statement. The only person who claims to be Butch Cassidy's relative, but yet offers no birth records, weapons, memorabila(photos) that Butch Cassidy would of owned for proof, is L. Parker(self-proclaimed sister). Further more two sources William T. Phillips, and The an extra on the Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid DVD both state that Robert Parker was not Butch Cassidy's real name and it is still unknown to date. However recent names have began to sprung up as his possible names such as George Young, William Wagner, and James Ryan. So rather than dismissing these claims as false, real investigation must come into play as to whether or not one of these are/is/could be his actual name(s). I believe History Channel and other learning networks need to be notified of such events, because looking closer will result in a more conclusive answer.TheRealOutlaw 16:30, 28 2007.

 * Robert Leroy Parker has been shown to exist as of 1880, when he would have been around 14 years old. His name appears in the 1880 Utah territory census.  You can search in two places:  The Utah Census search form (search for surname Parker, first Robert, in 1880) and you will find a reference to microfilm 1255336, which lists Robert L. Parker in Circleville, age 14.  Second search FamilySearch.org's Census listing for Robert Parker, 1880 census, in utah and you will find a reference to the same microfilm with more info (son of Max Parker, works on a farm, etc - you can pay a fee to see a scan of the microfilm if you are inclined).  So the first assertion above ('that name has not been proven real') is simply false.  Lula was born a scant two months before Robert Leroy Parker left home (and before Butch's first crimes), and he didn't return for 41 years according to her account, so it is doubtful she would have memorabilia like a weapon.  She mentions that the family received letters from Robert Parker, but they destroyed them to protect his whereabouts - which can also explain any lack of material possessions.  Aside from the Lula book, the family is very tight-lipped about the whole affair for their personal reasons.  The William T. Phillips manuscript is suspect, as names were obviously changed to 'protect the innocent'.  Some people (like Larry Pointer) even make a plausible case that Phillips IS Butch aka Parker, but wrote it from the perspective that Phillips was not Butch to protect himself, and never mentioned Parker to save the family name.  I haven't seen the DVD extra but I would question their sources as well.  Do they provide any?  Regardless, without concrete verifiable sources that disprove Parker's link to the Butch Cassidy name, I think that removing all reference to Parker is little more than original research on your part.  Adagio 05:24, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

 * For what it's worth, he's also probably the 4-year-old Robert Parker living with his grandmother Jane Gillies and other relatives in the 1870 US Census taken in Beaver, Utah...11 Arlington (talk) 05:45, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

 * As of lately History Channel has been shown artifacts from the Wagner family's in California that contain passports to Bolivia, Butch Cassidy's suit (that he wore in his famous photo in Texas) as well as several family photo's which identically matched him in his Texas photo, a pinkerton wanted poster, Butch Cassidy's coach gun, as well as news articles of him abandoning his family. Now thats not original research, thats better than some microfilm and quoted burnt letters. The photo's will be put online when the approval from History Channel comes in; Wikipedia Policy. So rather than arguing excessively over the name, might I suggest a wikiproject.TheRealOutlaw 22:40, 30 March 2007.

 * Cool, we'll wait until you provide some evidence. In the meantime, please stop removing references to Robert Leroy Parker from the article, and have your friends stop removing that information as well. Adagio 06:13, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

 * I live in the part of Wyoming where Butch lived and none of the old timers in this area believed he was killed in Bolivia. Many, many of his old friends said that he lived for many years under an assumed name and visited them regularly for years. As far as evidence, how about his handgun with his brand on it, and his opal ring that he gave to his girlfriend in Riverton and photographs of him taken in Dubois? You should read In Search of Butch Cassidy before you conclude that there is no evidence. TV programs like the one on the History Channel that concludes that he didn't return from Bolivia are generally crappy. You can't educate yourself by watching TV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Senor Cuete (talk • contribs) 04:21, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The person who put the year and cause of his death has made a mistake and got it wrong, I have watched Gunslingers and on the second series and first episode is Butch Cassidy and he didn't die in Bolivia from gunshot wounds he died as a business man who was successful and it was not in 1908. 2A02:C7C:90B1:AE00:55F7:A4B2:A7B1:C5FD (talk) 19:41, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

 * There is also reference to a man fitting Butch's description in Louis L'amour's book about his life called Education of a Wandering Man I do not remember the exact words of it but he talked about this man coming up the mountain, spending the night at his parents home, then going further up the mountain when he returned a few days later he would come back with money. It gives food for thought, especially to those of us who think the reports of the men killed in Bolivia that are supposedly Butch and Sundance could just be another pair of white cowboys. There were after other whites in Bolivia commiting robberies.24.247.134.14 (talk) 14:23, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Almost all the newspapers in the archives from 1900 through 1910 list Robert L. Parker as being his real name. stutzeyStutzey (talk)` —Preceding undated comment was added at 18:59, 5 October 2008 (UTC).

William Butch Wagner?
Is there any evidence supporting the claim that Butch Cassidy was really born William Butch Wagner? If nothing can be provided, the recent changes should be reverted. Justin

I work at a museum in Telluride, Colorado and a colleage of mine found a government document linking William Wagner and William Phillips working as teamsters when they were young from Kentucky to Oregon Territory. So if you have an ancestry.com account I can give you the link to it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.99.1.65 (talk) 00:18, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Anyone Notice
If you closley at the two pictures of the real Butch Cassidy, and of Robert Parker their faces don't match, even when you put a moustache over Robert Parker mug shot the faces still don't match.

Removed panel from the main article - it needs supporting references to be more than original research.

That's interesting because both of those photographs are known to be photographs of Robert Leroy Parker AKA Butch Cassidy. The one on the left is his mug shot taked at the Wyoming territorial prison in Rawlins, Wyoming and the second one is cropped from the famous portrait of the Wild Bunch taken in Fort Worth, Texas. They sure look like the same person to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Senor Cuete (talk • contribs) 04:36, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Senor Cuete. Comparing still pictures, even of the same person, can be a very dicey business. I have photos of my own daughter, caught in such a way, from one occasion to the next, that you'd swear they were not the same person. Yet I took the pictures myself. (Valhalan (talk) 04:47, 11 February 2011 (UTC))

Those two images are patently the same person. Look at the ears - identical, as is the rest. 86.17.228.136 (talk) 19:35, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Obstinate blanking
I believe there is a mechanism for freezing the content of an article, accessible to Wikipedia Administrators, I suppose. Any thoughts about getting this article frozen, to shut down the repeated anonymous deletion? Bertport 03:40, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I think what happens first is someone needs to warn the user on their user page (the one who is blanking). And if they don't stop then their account will be blocked. I think that's the procedure. I don't have time to do it right now...could someone else?--70.41.230.6 01:05, 12 August 2006 (UTC) --cda 11:37, 12 August 2006 (UTC) (wasn't logged in yesterday)

If you check his user page, you will see that multiple people have written him about it. There's no sign that he's ever read his own user page. Bertport 01:13, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, then the next step is I posted a "last warning" on the user 204.9.11.123 page. If they vandalize again we can list the account on this page for an admin to block that account. --cda 11:37, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, some progress - he blanked again, but he switched to a new IP address to do it. The new IP address has not edited Wikipedia before. Depending on how inconvenient it is for him to change IP addresses, we might eventually get somewhere by blocking every IP address he uses, I suppose. In any case, it's pretty clear that he read his own user page. Bertport 13:59, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Hey, why do you assume it's a guy, that's sexist ; ) I reported this to admins. --cda 19:16, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

William T Phillips
I believe there is some evidence that William T Phillips was Butch Cassidy ( for example). There are even several books on the subject. I'm not sure that the evidence is conclusive, but I wonder if it isn't disingenuous to say that "no evidence supports the claims". Perhaps we should change it to "some nonconclusive evidence supports the claims" (with a reference or external link to more info) or perhaps expand the discussion of the controversy? Adagio 22:03, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

 * Mysteries at the Museum, Season 2, Episode 3, "Prison Experiment and Butch Cassidy Manuscript"—Discusses William T. Phillips' mss. in Laramie, Wyoming, and raises the question of whether Phillips was Butch Cassidy. PlaysInPeoria (talk) 16:53, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Real Name is Unconfirmed
The name Robert LeRoy Parker needs to be reomoved from the article because on a DVD of Butch Cassidy and the Sundance kid it states that Butch Cassidy's real name is unknown. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gwag (talk • contribs) 01:11, 13 December 2006 (UTC).

Yes it is documented as Robert Leroy Parker. I met a guy in Yuma who was from Southern Utah, and had hung  out with a petty vandal named Parker. He was short and pudgy, resembled Charles Leroy a lot, and was always setting school fire alarms, etc, getting into minor trouble although he was Mormon; again, similarly to Cassidy.65.129.188.112 (talk) 05:00, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Unprofessional Writing Standards
The paragraph commencing "Butch Cassidy was known to hide out..." has been deleted due to a literary standard inappropriate to the standards of Wikipedia. The paragraph contained subordinate clauses without a main clause and the subject's name was not Butch Cassidy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.112.184.25 (talk) 16:48, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

The Amount of Money Stolen in His "Big Heist" Needs to Be Clarified
I'm not not sure what it means to say that Parker/Cassidy's big heist in South America would be worth $100,000 today, as that would mean that he stole only a few thousand (at most) in then contemporary dollar terms. Surely his heists in the States, which translate variously to anywhere from a few hundred thousand dollars to over a million dollars, are bigger heists? Has a zero or two been left off the total for his SA heist or did the poster not understand that the figures for the robberies in the States weren't adjusted for inflation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.99.243.245 (talk) 09:29, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Hole in the Wall vs Wild Bunch
Butch Cassidy's gang wasn't the Hole in the Wall gang, that was in the movie. His real gang was called the Wild Bunch.

The caption on the photo at the top of the article even says the Wild Bunch.

I think they changed the name of the gang for the movie because there was another movie called The Wild Bunch that was out around the same time. AnitaFritz (talk) 09:26, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

What Caption? on Wiki? "The Wild Bunch" was released after   "Butch Casidy and the Sundance Kid". : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wild_Bunch No it was informallty the Hole in the Wall gang. Popularly, by the press and Ned Buntline, the: "Wild Bunch". Possibly Parker did not even name them at all as only he was the only one constant in their episodes. Longabaugh, Curry, the others, were not always included in all robberies.65.129.188.112 (talk) 05:03, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Hole in the Wall vs Wild Bunch
Butch Cassidy's gang wasn't the Hole in the Wall gang, that was in the movie. His real gang was called the Wild Bunch.

The caption on the photo at the top of the article even says the Wild Bunch.

I think they changed the name of the gang for the movie because there was another movie called The Wild Bunch that was out around the same time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AnitaFritz (talk • contribs) 09:33, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

What Caption? No it was Hole in the wall Gang. It is very possible that Parker did not name them anything; the press and Ned Buntline were responsible for calling them The Wild Bunch. Parker was the only constant in the robberies, not even Longabaugh (Sundance) was present at all of them. The "gang" varied. And the movie "Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid" was released before Peckinpah's "The Wild Bunch". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wild_Bunch 65.129.188.112 (talk) 05:24, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

The same trio, together
After the lede, the next paragraph begins "The same trio..." but no trio has been named. Can someone fix this? Rick Norwood (talk) 12:05, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Butch Cassidy wiled Butch
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butch_Cassidy%27s_Wild_Bunch --85.64.157.213 (talk) 18:07, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Syntax fix.
I'm not familier with wiki syntax, so I will let someone else do it. "Early life" has a sources thing that needs to be fixed up. This: {Sources - US Federal census, 1920, shows Maximilian Parker's family arrived in the USA in 1856; US census for 1860 shows the Parker family already in Beaver, Utah}24.20.13.202 (talk) 21:30, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Name to be used should probably be changed
Because the name of Butch Cassidy is far better known than whatever his birth name happens to be, Robert Leroy Parker or something else, I think we should remove the use of the Parker name throughout the narrative except in the beginning where reference is made to his birth name. There are many biographies and histories about Cassidy and his Wild Bunch which uses his alias as the name to be referred to throughout their books. There are other Wikipedia entries which used the alias rather than the birth name. One example would be Lucky Luciano who's birth name was Salvatore Lucania. Why shouldn't this wikipedia entry use the name of Butch Cassidy more prominently throughout the narrative? What do others think of this notion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.235.195.242 (talk) 13:38, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I will volunteer to make the change as discussed in the above paragraph. I hope no one will have a problem with this change.

Origins
"Maximillian Parker and Ann Campbell Gillies, English immigrants" with a name like that she would have been of Scottish descent and her Tyneside birthplace is a bit of a giveaway.Optymystic (talk) 19:02, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

 * The episode of Whicker's World featuring the interview with Cassidy's sister, on YouTube here:  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 18:22, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Maximilian emigrated to the United States in 1856 aged 11. Leaving Liverpool on the 23 March bound for Boston aboard the sailing vessel: Enoch Train. where he arrived on May 1st along with his parents Robert and Ann, sisters Ada & Martha and brother Arthur. So Butch's early life is bunkum.

Velpremus (talk) 12:47, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Mormon?
There is no text in that article that by the time he started going by something other than Robert Leroy Parker, that he in any way self-identified as Mormon, or held membership in the church. Is there any reliable sources to indicate that he at any point self-identified as Mormon, was ever baptized into the church &/or was ever excommunicated from it? Simply having Mormon parents is not enough evidence to claim that he was Mormon. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 20:11, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I did some quick searching. LDS Living and Famous Mormons both suggest he was probably baptized at 8 years old (sounds circumstantial, though).  Van Wagnoner and Walker (1982) state it factually.  I see no mention of excommunication.  I agree that one is not a Mormon simply because their parents were.  And if a child is baptized but leaves the church before adulthood, I'm not sure that automatically makes them Mormon either.  Shouldn't this be about self-identification?  The baptism might have just been the decision of parents or family.  Unless they self-identify as "former Mormons", then I can't draw conclusions.  I've tried to discuss this over at Talk:List of former Latter Day Saints.  I don't know if there are any sources about how Butch Cassidy self-identified.  Did he think of himself as "formerly Mormon" or did he think he was ever a Mormon at all?  ——Rich jj (talk) 17:32, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Parker was definitely Mormon by adult choice. Baptism at 8 is age of awareness. Whether his actions reflect sincerity is anyone's guess. He is factually recorded as not shooting anyone.65.129.188.112 (talk) 04:49, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Approx. $21,000?
Another Wikipedia article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telluride,_Colorado) reads:

In June 1889, Butch Cassidy, before becoming associated with his gang, "the wild bunch", robbed the San Miguel Valley Bank in Telluride. This was his first major recorded crime. He exited the bank with $24,580, and later became famous as a bank robber.[9]

So is it $21,000 or $24,580?

Thanks, 71.139.163.243 (talk) 18:32, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Last shootout was 1925 in Eloy, Arizona. 65.129.188.112 (talk) 04:51, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Date of their departure has been wrong for the last ten months
Some well-meaning soul altered the date from 1901 to 1902 because he or she mistakenly thought that the section about other partners of Cassidy in late 1901 referred to Cassidy himself. This is where it would have been helpful if sources had been cited in the first place. There are four citations now, which is four more than the February 20, 1901 date was ever given. Citing to reliable and verifiable sources-- it ain't that difficult, folks. Mandsford 02:17, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

"01:52, 28 June 2015 Glades2 (talk | contribs | block) . . (27,918 bytes) (0) . . (→1901: South America: Timeline was inconsistent with previous section (previous section ended in late 1901))"

How about this newly discovered "Butch" photo, any thoughts on it?
https://www.amazon.com/Butch-Cassidy-Photographic-Finds-Century/dp/1475071396 Middle More Rider (talk) 11:51, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Incorrect and undocumented. Several documented photos exist of Parker and Longabaugh; these men aren't in the picture. Curry and Elzy Lay are. Remember, the fax machine got Butch and Sundance. It doesn't lie.65.129.188.112 (talk) 05:30, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Butch Cassidy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150402100626/https://history.lds.org/overlandtravels/companyPioneers?lang=eng&companyId=195 to https://history.lds.org/overlandtravels/companyPioneers?lang=eng&companyId=195
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150402125730/https://history.lds.org/overlandtravels/pioneerDetail?lang=eng&pioneerId=58265 to https://history.lds.org/overlandtravels/pioneerDetail?lang=eng&pioneerId=58265

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:14, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Removed William Holden as: "Butch Cassidy".
This is not documented in Wiki on movie "The Wild Bunch". This movie is not in any way shape or form or by  any intention any resemblance to the  Butch Cassidy's Hole in the Wall Gang, as they called themselves. Nor was the character PIke intended to resemble  Butch Cassidy (Robert Leroy Parker.) It was about  another bunch of anachronistic outlaws by Sam Peckinpah, similar to "Cable Hogue" with Jason Robards,  and "Ride the High Country" with Randolph Scott.65.129.188.112 (talk) 04:57, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Death?
Parker's death needs be a question mark. There is much evidence, by his own family, that  he wrote home faithfully every week until 1930. Also, that Longabaugh (Sundance) and Etta Place returned to the U.S. at least twice after running to South America.

To guess at: "1908" is to simply agree with the 1969 movie and is  not referenced. So, make up that year simply because  the Bolivian Army, in the movie, used a  model '08 Maxim gun? That makes no sense. 65.129.188.112 (talk) 05:12, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Butch Cassidy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090610213030/http://www.wyomingtalesandtrails.com/butch2.html to http://www.wyomingtalesandtrails.com/butch2.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:25, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Butch Cassidy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100819052014/http://www.prospector-utah.com/bassett.htm to http://www.prospector-utah.com/bassett.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050920152107/http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/danne/slatta.htm to http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/danne/slatta.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:07, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Butch Cassidy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081011090544/http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/more/CRM/heritage_education/history_mystery/hm1/the_outlaw_trail.html to http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/more/CRM/heritage_education/history_mystery/hm1/the_outlaw_trail.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090115060800/http://content.lib.utah.edu/u/?%2Fpbb%2C133 to http://content.lib.utah.edu/u?%2Fpbb%2C133
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070614195503/http://www.historynet.com/magazines/wild_west/3037101.html to http://www.historynet.com/magazines/wild_west/3037101.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:41, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Editor conducting revert war
is engaging in a revert war concerning, of all things, the correct use of emigrate and immigrate. Here is the sentence: Ann Gillies was born and lived in Tyneside in northeast England before X-migrating to America. The correct word here is emigrate, because the family were moving out of England: e-, "out of." Here is another way to demonstrate: The family immigrated to the United States. They immigrated to America because they were moving into: im-, "in". This is not a style guide issue; this is a basic vocabulary problem. —Dilidor (talk) 19:40, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Robert or George
I saw on my paper "West cyclopedia" that Butch Cassidy real name was George LeRoy Parker. On this page is written as Robert LeRoy Parker. The source on this page was deleted, but it is archived in: https://web.archive.org/web/20161231100446/https://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/res/Education_in_BLM/Learning_Landscapes/For_Kids/History_Mystery/hm1/alias.html I found various pages referencing George LeRoy Parker as the real name: https://tomrizzo.com/tag/george-leroy-parker/ (ExLibris Tom Rizzo "Last Stand at Bitter Creek") http://www.annalsofcrime.com/03-01.htm (from an article of Jay Robert Nash) https://www.pbs.org/weekendexplorer/utah/elkmeadows/elk_cassidy.htm (PBS) http://www.applegate-project.org/tng/getperson.php?personID=I25400&tree=Main (a project to map ancestors) https://collections.lib.utah.edu/details?id=430669 (University in Utah) Other opting for Robert LeRoy Parker: https://www.biography.com/crime-figure/butch-cassidy (Biography site) http://webiographies.org/auc0000012/index.html (Biography site) Finally only one source says it was born as Robert LeRoy Parker and changed is name to George Cassidy. o_O https://time.com/5682980/butch-cassidy-sundance-kid-history/ (TIME writing about the movie "Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid") It looks to me that the older and "written on paper" references point to "George LeRoy Parker", while the newer to "Robert LeRoy Parker". Anyone with a "solid" source? Should we (Wikipedia) at least mention both? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.34.83.57 (talk) 22:38, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Time of death for Butch Cassidy
So I was looking up in to internet and searched "Butch Cassidy". And I found two results of his time of death. One was 1908, Bolivia and One another was 1930's, ???. So what actually happened? ChangeMyNamePlease (talk) 01:44, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Try to search Sundance Kid on Wikipedia, it will come as 1908 alt. 1937, what time they actually died? ChangeMyNamePlease (talk) 01:46, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Butch Cassidy


text:
Knesiyat Hasekhel

Knesiyat Hasekhel (from Hebrew: "The Mind Church" ) is an Israeli rock band from Sderot.

History
The name of the band, established in the early 1990s, is a translation into Hebrew of Church of Reason, from Robert Pirsig's book Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance.

The music is a blend of new wave music and post-punk influences (particularly Nick Cave and the Bad Seeds) and Mediterranean and Middle Eastern ethnic rock. In 1993, Knesiyat Hasekhel produced its first studio album, "Whispered Words" (nanadisk). In 1994, Knesiyat Hasekhel released their second studio album "Here are Songs".

The third full length and self-titled album "Knesiyat Hasekhel" was released in 1999. The band was named "best rock group of 1999" by Israel's national radio station, and invited to play at major rock festivals around the country.

In 2001, Mashina's Shlomi Bracha helped produce the band's third album "Rutz Yeled" (Run, Kid!), a studio album that was recorded live. Following the release of the album, the band toured with Ehud Banai. Their fourth album "Yadaiim Lemalah" (Hands Up) was released in 2004, and was produced for the first time by the band themselves.

In 2007 the band teamed up with a new label to produce "Autobiography," re-recording their hits accompanied by a 40-piece orchestra composed of ethnic and traditional classical instruments. A live show was produced for the Israel Festival.

Discography

 * Whispered Words (Nanadisk) – 1993
 * Here are Songs (Hed Artzi) – 1994
 * Church of Reason (Levantini) – 1999
 * Run Child (NMC Records) – 2001
 * Hands Up (NMC Records) – 2004
 * Autobiography (Barbi Records) – 2007
 * Rows of People - 2010
 * Home Is So Far - 2013
 * It Is Not Me - 2017

title: Knesiyat Hasekhel


text:
Talk:Havelock Ellis

Untitled comments
The article says that Ellis "was interested in sexual liberation and wrote the seven volume Studies in the Psychology of Sex" and his "Sexual Inversion described the sexual relations of homosexual men, something that Ellis did not consider to be a disease or a crime."

Perhaps there was a reason he did not consider it a disease or crime: Could somebody who has some expertise in this area of study (Ellis, his influences including Keynes, etc.), check out what is said on the following page and confirm or rebut the sources and the quotations. Disgusting, horrifying if true to any degree: http://www.aposse.org/commons/Keynes/keynes.htm

 * It would be too time-consuming to criticise the web page you suggest--http://www.aposse.org/commons/Keynes/keynes.htm

 * Almost every line of this bizarre text carries an error of fact. But considering we are talking about Havelock Ellis, it should be noted that he was NOT a Fabian, but was a founder member of a proto-Fabian organisation, the Fellowship of the New Life.  He was very liberal in his attitudes, because he relied on serious and independent thought rather than received dogma for his knowledge. As such, he did support the development of individual sexual lives.  He also supported homosexual rights, feminism, and intellectual expression.

I don't want to scare anyone away but please sign your posts with your username (or some other tag) on the discussion page, this allows readers to follow the discussion in an orderly manner.--CJ 20:09, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"According to Ellis in My Life, his friends were much amused at his being considered an expert on sex. Some knew that he suffered from impotence until the age of 60.  He then discovered that he could become aroused by the sight of a woman urinating. Ellis named this "undinism". It is now more commonly called urolagnia."

This is a mess. He noted early on the sexual implications of urinating, not at age 60 like this text suggests. Also, I didn't see anywhere in his autobiography of him mentioning being impotent. His wife was lesbian, and he seemed to imply he didn't have a strong sex drive, which accounts for why he had little to no sex. If I'm wrong, please inform me where it says otherwise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.195.185.240 (talk) 23:29, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Racist?
Was Havelock Ellis a racist?! No. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.127.249.26 (talk) 05:12, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Translations
Ellis translated Zola's Germinal and A Rebours by J-K Huysmans. Likely, he did more. This ought to be noted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 204.169.48.123 (talk) 22:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC).

He also translated Cesare Lombroso's L'uomo di genio in rapporto alla psichiatria 129.177.213.54 (talk) 11:58, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

The language of science
"German was then (ie 1896) considered the language of science"? This is an odd statement. It was not used by Dodgson or Pearson when publishing in 1896 [] or by equally import figures around that time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.166.150.12 (talk) 11:36, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Small update suggestion regarding the tenses in describing homosexual. (11/30/12)
The being verb tense previously used, "was", could potentially obfuscate the prevalence of the word's use in current times. Making it "is" indicates its enduring prevalence. Additionally, specifying which parts of the word were from Greek and Latin could potentially aid in people's understanding of some lingual scholars' - like Ellis himself - frustration with hybrid words. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.120.192.227 (User talk:75.120.192.227 02:36, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

 * OK edit, but pretty hard to understand that explanation. See diff. Meters (talk) 02:42, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

More on his life
In reading the article about his wife, I came across "Ellis had a nervous breakdown in March 1916 and died of diabetes that September." I don't think this line was inspired by the nearby citation, but, assuming it is true, it indicates that there is more to be told of Ellis's life than what this article currently covers. If an editor has access to an Ellis biography, they could do a lot to fill out the rather skeletal article with further information about him.--Quisqualis (talk) 08:07, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Views on Eugenics
Hi, I am a student editor for 140.106 and I will be adding more info on the views on eugenics. ArjavS (talk) 03:51, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello, I am also student editor for 140.106 and I will be adding more info on Ellis' views of sex and the psychology of sex. (173.10.186.150 (talk) 19:32, 13 April 2017 (UTC))

 * As Ellis, born same decade as Freud, lived like Freud until 1939, 6 years after Hitler's coming to power in Germany, I wonder if Ellis had any published views on German Nazism and its application of eugenics which lost popularity after post-WWII revelations of Nazi racial atrocities. Would be interesting.Cloptonson (talk) 05:15, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:Havelock Ellis


text:
Mouseover

In computing, a mouseover, mouse hover or hover box is a graphical control element that is activated when the user moves or hovers the pointer over a trigger area, usually with a mouse, but also possible with a digital pen. Mouseover control elements are common in web browsers. For example, hovering over a hyperlink triggers the mouseover control element to display a URL on the status bar. Site designers can define their own mouseover events using JavaScript or Cascading Style Sheets.

Mouseover events are frequently used in web design and graphical user interface programming.

It is also known as rollover, which refers to a button created by a web developer or web designer, found within a web page, used to provide interactivity between the user and the page itself. The term rollover in this regard originates from the visual process of "rolling the mouse cursor over the button" causing the button to react (usually visually, by replacing the button's source image with another image), and sometimes resulting in a change in the web page itself. The part of the term 'roll' is probably referring to older mice which had a mechanical assembly consisting of a hard rubber ball housed in the base of the mouse (which rolls) contrary to the modern optical mouse, which has no rolling parts.

Rollovers can be done by imagery, text or buttons. The user only requires two images/buttons (with the possible addition of "alt" text to these images) to perform this interactive action. Rollover imagery can be done either by a program with a built-in tool or script coding. The user will have to pick a first image and select an alternate secondary image. A mouse action will have to be set to either "click on" or "mouse over" in order for the rollover to be triggered. When the mouseover moves on the image, the alt image/secondary image will appear but will not stay – when the user "mouses out" by moving the mouse away from the image, the original source image will reappear.

Tooltip
A special usage of mouseover event is a tooltip which shows a short description of the object under the pointer. The tooltip appears only after the mouse or stylus is held over the object for a certain amount of time.

On images, these may be produced using the HTML  attribute.

title: Mouseover


text:
User talk:Deep Black

Welcome to the Wikipedia
Here are some links I thought useful:

 * Tutorial
 * Help desk
 * Foundation issues
 * Policy Library
 * Utilities
 * Cite your sources
 * Verifiability
 * Wikiquette
 * Civility
 * Conflict resolution
 * Neutral point of view
 * Pages needing attention
 * Peer review
 * Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense
 * Brilliant prose
 * Featured pictures
 * Boilerplate text
 * Current polls
 * Mailing lists
 * IRC channel

Feel free to contact me personally with any questions you might have. About, Help desk, and Village pump are also a place to go for answers to general questions. To read up on the latest wikinews, have a look at the Wikipedia Signpost.

You can sign your name by typing 4 tildes, like this: ~.

(Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 23:14, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

title: User talk:Deep Black


text:
Slant (handwriting)

Slant is the predominant angle of the downward stroke in handwriting based on Latin script. The slant of a sample of writing is a feature of many regional handwriting variations, and also a reflection of the copybook that is taught.

Examples

 * Slant is measured in degrees counterclockwise from the base line;
 * A slant of less than 90 degrees is a right-hand slant;
 * A slant of more than 90 degrees is a left-hand slant. (No examples in the above table.)

Measurement of slants
A good basis for its estimation is the point of the handwritten curve where the velocity has its peak value in the downward stroke. The polar distribution of the running angle along a handwritten trajectory is another good method for estimating the slant angle. Left-handed writing is often accompanied by a slant value which is larger than 90 degrees, i.e., it is bent backward, to the left.

Graphology
In graphology slant can refer to either upstroke or downstroke values. These strokes can be made in the upper, middle, lower, or any combination of those zones.

Handwriting recognition
In handwriting recognition, an affine transformation can be used to normalize handwritten input towards a population average or towards 90 degrees.

title: Slant (handwriting)


text: User talk:68.211.172.29

title: User talk:68.211.172.29


text: Template:Citroën

title: Template:Citroën


text:
Positif (album)

Positif was a 1984 studio album by Jean-Jacques Goldman, his third solo album recorded in French. It was recorded at Studio Gang by Olivier do Espirito Santo and Jean-Pierre Janiaud. It was released by JRG/BMG Music Publishing. It was certified diamond in France for sales of 1,000,000 copies.

Personnel

 * Guy Delacrois - bass
 * Manu Katché, Marc Changereau - percussion
 * Catherine Bonnevay, Jean-Jacques Goldman, Jean-Pierre Janiaud, Dominique Poulain - vocals
 * Jean-Jacques Goldman - keyboards
 * Claude Engel, Jean-Jacques Goldman, Alain Pewzner, Kamil Rustam, Patrice Tison - guitar
 * Roland Romanelli - organ
 * Jean-Yves d'Angelo - piano
 * John Helliwell - saxophone
 * Roland Romanelli - synthesizer
 * Patrice Mondon - violin

title: Positif (album)