text:
NY1

NY1 (also officially known as Spectrum News NY1 and spoken as New York One) is an American cable news television channel founded by Time Warner Cable, which itself is owned by Charter Communications through its acquisition in May 2016. The channel provides 24-hour news coverage, with a focus on the five boroughs of New York City; its programming primarily features news, traffic and weather, however NY1 also features specialty programs such as Inside City Hall (which is renamed Road to City Hall during New York City mayoral elections).

NY1 is available on Spectrum's New York City system on channel 1 in high definition. On Optimum in the New York City area, it is carried on channel 8 in HD. The channel is available to more than two million cable customers within the five boroughs of New York City, as well as most parts of New Jersey served by both Spectrum and Optimum (where it is seen on Channel 64), Mount Vernon in Westchester County, New York, and Long Island. , NY1 is not currently available on Verizon FiOS.

Outside the New York metropolitan area, NY1 is carried on Spectrum systems throughout the State of New York, and its HD simulcast channel is available on its Orlando and Tampa systems. It is also available on its Raleigh, Charlotte, and Greensboro systems in North Carolina on digital channel 215, both in standard and high definition. Like all Spectrum news channels, it is also available nationwide on the Spectrum News app to television and broadband subscribers, and to television subscribers through smart TV and mobile apps in the 2200 series. Outside the New York area, a loop of public service announcements and Spectrum promo ads is played over New York–specific advertising.

History
NY1 was conceived by Richard Aurelio, the president of Time Warner Cable's New York City cable group who felt at the time that "New York City needed its own 24/7 news station that just covered the city." The channel launched on September 8, 1992; it originally operated from a newsroom at the National Video Center at 460 West 42nd Street in the Manhattan borough of New York City, under the guidance of vice president of news Paul Sagan and news director Steve Paulus. Construction of the 42nd Street facility was completed just over 1½ months earlier on July 15, however the channel's newly hired reporters actually began work one month beforehand by attending a videojournalism "boot camp."

While some of NY1's reporters had used their own cameras in other markets, most of them had no exposure to the technical side of journalism. Following their training, the reporters and the rest of the staff took part in an additional two-month training period that included four weeks of real-time rehearsal. A watershed event came in the final weeks of training, with the collapse of a former post office building on Manhattan's West Side. Although the channel was not yet on the air, NY1 reporters covered the story as if the channel was fully operational, interviewing survivors and witnesses. Following the attack on the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001, NY1's feed was temporarily transmitted throughout the United States via Oxygen after the cable channel was unable to broadcast regular programming from its headquarters in the Manhattan neighborhood of Battery Park City, located near the World Trade Center. In 2001, Time Warner Cable began offering NY1 to digital cable subscribers in the Albany market (it remained on that system even after the October 2002 launch of sister cable news channel Capital News 9); the channel was added to Time Warner Cable systems in other markets—primarily those located in Upstate New York—thereafter.

In January 2002, the channel moved its operations to a new, all-digital facility on the sixth floor at Chelsea Market at 75 Ninth Avenue (between West 15th and 16th streets) in the Chelsea neighborhood of Manhattan. On June 30, 2003, Time Warner Cable launched NY1 Noticias, a Spanish-language version of the channel for digital cable subscribers. In 2005, NY1 launched NY1 on Demand, a video-on-demand service for Time Warner Cable customers, available on channel 1111 in the provider's New York City system.

In 2008, NY1 launched a high-definition simulcast feed on Time Warner Cable digital channel 701, although it was originally broadcast only in a pillarboxed format (a center-cut 4:3 picture with sidebars of the NY1 logo), until the channel migrated to a full 16:9 widescreen format in October 2009.

Rebranding to Time Warner Cable News NY1
On March 14, 2013, Time Warner Cable announced plans to rebrand NY1 and its other regional news channels (including News 14 Carolina and the Your News Now networks) under the TWC News brand by the end of the year, along with the adoption of new on-air logos and a standardized graphics package for each of the channels. The reasoning for the name change was due to the perception by the company that Time Warner Cable subscribers did not know that the provider owns its regional news channels and are largely exclusive to its systems (NY1 is an exception, as it is also carried by Cablevision in the New York City market).

The proposed name change for NY1 met with immediate controversy among Time Warner Cable's subscribers due to the familiarity with the brand and dissatisfaction with the provider's service by its New York City area customers. Time Warner Cable explored the possibility of keeping the NY1 brand while also including on-air references to its TWC ownership in some fashion, though executives confirmed that the rebranding would have no effect on the channel's news format or reporting style.

On November 20, 2013, Time Warner Cable announced that it would append the "Time Warner Cable News" brand to the beginning of the NY1 name, while "NY1" would continue to be used on-air as a primary brand. The revised branding as well as the new graphics and music package (which included a modified version of the logo used by the channel since 2001, amended alongside the "Time Warner Cable News" logo) went into effect on December 16, 2013.

Renaming to Spectrum News NY1
On May 18, 2016, Time Warner Cable was acquired by Charter Communications. The Time Warner Cable News branding was replaced by Spectrum News (named after Charter's cable services brand) beginning November 15, 2016. While the NY1 name is still in use, especially on air, it continues to incorporate the "Spectrum News" brand at the beginning of NY1's primary brand.

On March 30, 2017, Charter Communications announced plans for a major restructuring of NY1, as several reporters were laid off and some shows were cancelled in the upcoming months. A spokesperson for Charter said "As with any network, we're constantly evolving to find better ways to reach and engage our viewers. We seek to provide the most compelling information and entertainment possible by providing more context, in-depth reporting, analysis and explanation, cultivating a more relevant and thoughtful conversation that makes Spectrum News essential in the lives of Spectrum subscribers. From time to time, our programming and staffing will change as we strive to better cover the stories that resonate most with our viewers."

On April 1, 2017, the day after this restructuring, Richard Aurelio highly criticized this move and admitted that NY1 has turned from a stalwart local news channel to a "money-making machine." He also noted a deemphasis on local coverage that NY1 was supposed to focus on, especially after the cancellation of longtime shows The Call and NY Times Close Up, claiming that "they're really abandoning their commitment to the city."

NY1 as prototype for other Time Warner Cable markets
NY1 was the first regional news channel to be operated by Time Warner Cable prior to the acquisition of Charter Communications; the cable provider has since launched 24-hour news channels in several other markets that are modeled after NY1 (two of which, News 24 Houston and News 9 San Antonio, both operated as joint ventures between TWC and Belo, had shut down within their first two years of operation). In addition to the channels launched by TWC, the provider also acquired Spectrum News Rochester (which debuted in 1990 as "WGRC") in 1995, after it assumed cable franchise rights in the Rochester, New York, market from Greater Rochester Cablevision. It also acquired Spectrum News 1 (which debuted in the late 2000s as cn|2) in 2012, after it assumed cable franchise rights in much of Kentucky from Insight Communications. The majority of these channels, as of September 20, 2016, are now branded as "Spectrum News" as part of the integration with Time Warner Cable and Charter Communication's cable systems into Charter Spectrum. The channels include:

 * Spectrum Bay News 9 – Tampa, Florida (debuted in 1997 as "Bay News 9")
 * Spectrum News 13 – Orlando, Florida (debuted in 1997 as "Central Florida News 13")
 * Spectrum News Austin – Austin, Texas (debuted in 1999 as "News 8 Austin")
 * Spectrum News Capital Region – Albany, New York (debuted in 2002 as "Capital News 9")
 * Spectrum News Central New York – Syracuse, New York (debuted in 2003 as "News 10 Now")
 * Spectrum News North Carolina – serving several markets in North Carolina (debuted in Raleigh March 22, 2002, as News 14 Carolina and June 14 in Charlotte.)
 * Spectrum News Buffalo – Buffalo, New York (debuted in 2009 as "YNN Buffalo")
 * Spectrum News 1 – serving several markets in Wisconsin (debuted in 2018)
 * Spectrum News 1 SoCal – Los Angeles, California (debuted in 2018)

Format
The most-common "program" on NY1 is a half-hour "news wheel" that begins at the top and bottom of each hour. It begins with a recap of top news headlines named the "NY1 Minute" and includes weather every 10 minutes "on the ones." The remainder of the half-hour is filled with mostly taped news segments heavily focusing on stories from the New York metropolitan area. There are 15 minutes of commercials per hour.

Nearly all stories are pre-recorded, even segments made to look like they are occurring live; instead of a "live" indicator during field reports from NY1's reporters, most stories seen on the channel have an on-screen graphic merely stating that the reporter is/was "on scene." This is because when the report was first broadcast, it may have originally been shown live but is not once it is re-aired, unless it updates a breaking news event. Moreover, reporters generally tape their own stories with video cameras (a practice known as video journalism), and send these taped reports to the newsroom to be edited for broadcast. A practice unique only to NY1 when it debuted, the 'one-man band' mode of journalism where the reporter records their own stories and surrounding narration has now become a standard with most local newscasts throughout the United States.

Mornings on 1
Mornings on 1, which debuted on October 23, 2017, is a three-hour live weekday morning newscast (airs weekdays from 6:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m.) that is designed to help New Yorkers get an informed start to their day with a dynamic mix of local news, headlines, politics, weather, and transit reports. Mornings on 1 is anchored by Pat Kiernan and traffic reporter Jamie Stelter.

The Rush Hour

The Rush Hour is a two-hour weekday afternoon newscast anchored by Annika Pergament. It launched on January 16, 2024, and airs from 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. on weekdays.

News All Day

News All Day is a four-hour weekday programming block anchored by Shannan Ferry. It serves as NY1's primary daypart newscast after Mornings on 1. The show was launched in November 2021, and airs from 12:00 p.m. to 4 p.m. on Weekdays. The block was anchored by Ruschell Boone until her death in 2023.

In Focus with Cheryl Wills
In Focus with Cheryl Wills is a 30-minute public affairs program hosted by NY1 Live at Ten anchor Cheryl Wills. The program features viewpoints from a roundtable of newsmakers on various topics that impacts New Yorkers.

Inside City Hall / Road to City Hall
Inside City Hall (re-titled Road to City Hall during mayoral election cycles) is a weeknight political program hosted by Errol Louis that covers politics both local and national. NY1 and its upstate sister channels have collaborated on (and sponsored) a number of political debates, coverage of these use Inside City Hall presentation.

NY1 Live at Ten
NY1 Live at Ten, which premiered on January 15, 2018, is an hour-long live weeknight newscast that delivers a complete summary of the day's news and the first look at tomorrow's. NY1 Live at Ten is anchored by Cheryl Wills and weather is presented by chief meteorologist John Davitt. The 10 p.m. newscast has outsourcing agreement with a local sports cable channel and sister network SNY, utilizing its staff at the channel's 4 World Trade Center facility to cover professional and college sports highlights after NY1's sports department was shut down in September 2017.

On Stage
On Stage is a 30-minute program that premiered on May 4, 1998. Currently hosted by Frank DiLella, it primarily features reports on the New York City theater scene, as well as reports on theatrical performances from around the region.

Weekends on 1

Weekends on 1 is a weekend morning newscast anchored by Rocco Vertuccio that debuted in November 2021. It airs weekend mornings from 7:00 a.m. to noon.

The Call
Launched on July 25, 2005, The Call was a live, one-hour call-in and write-in news show hosted by John Schiumo. Throughout the day, viewers were encouraged to vote on the top news stories of the day, and after receiving an email alert as to the top story, were asked to write or call in to discuss the topic with Schiumo. The program was expanded to one hour in January 2012 in response to viewer requests. The Call was cancelled on April 6, 2017.

News at Eleven
In an effort to compete with local late-night newscasts on the area's broadcast television stations in the timeslot, NY1 debuted a nightly 11:00 p.m. newscast titled NY1 News at Eleven (later retitled Time Warner Cable News NY1 at Eleven and Spectrum News NY1 at Eleven) on January 22, 2007. The newscast was last anchored by Lewis Dodley on weeknights and Cheryl Wills on weekends. The 11 p.m. newscast was quietly cancelled following its September 28, 2017, broadcast.

The New York Times Close Up
The New York Times Close Up (originally titled New York Closeup), which premiered on September 8, 1992, was hosted by New York Times urban affairs correspondent Sam Roberts and was produced in association with the newspaper. The show gave viewers an inside preview of the most compelling reports from Sunday's Times, with the correspondents who filed the stories. It featured Times reporters, columnists, and editors examining the week's top stories in the New York City area. The last episode on NY1 aired on April 8, 2017; since September 15, 2017, The New York Times Close Up has aired on CUNY TV.

Sports on 1: The Last Word
Sports on 1: The Last Word, which premiered on September 8, 1992, was a live 55-minute call-in sports program (airing every night at 11:35 p.m.) that provided recaps of the local sports scores and headlines of the day. It was hosted by Phil Andrews, Kevin Garrity, or Dario Melendez on various days. The show aired its final program on September 28, 2017.

Spotlight NY
Debuting on December 2, 2017, Spotlight NY was a 30-minute program hosted by weekend afternoon anchor Vivian Lee that explored the arts and culture of the city. The show aired its final program two years later on January 6, 2019.

Current on-air staff

 * Guy Brown — Meteorologist
 * Erin Billups — health reporter
 * Roger Clark — general assignment reporter
 * Bobby Cuza — political reporter
 * John Davitt — chief meteorologist
 * Frank DiLella — theater reporter and host of On Stage
 * Bree Driscoll — anchor/reporter
 * Shannan Ferry — anchor/reporter
 * Kevin Frey — Washington, D.C., bureau reporter
 * Rebecca Greenberg — reporter
 * Courtney Gross — political reporter
 * Bob Hardt — political director
 * Jillian Jorgensen — education reporter
 * Pat Kiernan – morning anchor
 * Ron Lee — traffic anchor
 * Errol Louis – political reporter and host of Inside City Hall/Road to City Hall
 * Victoria Manna — Staten Island reporter
 * Dean Meminger — criminal justice reporter
 * Alyssa Paolicelli — general assignment reporter
 * Annika Pergament — Anchor, The Rush Hour
 * Justine Re — reporter
 * Dan Rivoli — traffic reporter
 * Josh Robin — chief national political reporter
 * Stephanie Simon — freelance anchor
 * Jamie Stelter — traffic reporter
 * Rocco Vertuccio — anchor/reporter
 * Cheryl Wills — anchor, NY1 Live at Ten, and host of In Focus with Cheryl Wills

Former on-air staff

 * Angi Gonzalez — anchor/reporter (2015-2021); Now a National Political Correspondent for Spectrum News
 * Anthony Pascale — anchor/reporter (2020-2024); now on-air reporting for FanDuel TV, covering horse racing
 * Asa Aarons – employment reporter (2009–2012); now with WJCL
 * Amy Yensi — Bronx reporter (2018-2022); now reports for PIX11
 * Dominic Carter – host of Inside City Hall/Road to City Hall and senior political reporter (1992–2009); now with WRNN-TV
 * Clodagh McGowan — Queens reporter (2013-2023)
 * Emily Ngo — political reporter (2019-2023)
 * Gloria Pazmino — political reporter (2019-2022); now National Correspondent for CNN
 * Edric Robinson — Manhattan reporter (Left 2023); now with News 12 Networks
 * Juan Manuel Benítez — political reporter (2003-2023)
 * Steve Cangialosi – sports anchor/reporter (1992–2000); now at MSG Plus, MSG Network, and WEPN-FM
 * Duke Castiglione – sports broadcaster on Sports on 1 (2000–2005); now with WCVB
 * Deborah Feyerick – anchor/reporter (1992–2000; now with CNN)
 * Stacy-Ann Gooden – weekday morning meteorologist (2017–2019; now with WPIX)
 * Taina Hernandez – political reporter (1997–2001; later with ABC News and WNYW)
 * Greg Kelly – political affairs reporter (2000–2002; later with WNYW; now with Newsmax TV)
 * Matt McClure – business anchor (2013–2019; now Executive Producer at iHeartMedia)
 * Kerri Lyon – reporter (1997–2002)
 * Lindsay Tuchman — general assignment reporter (2017-2021, Now reports for WABC-TV)
 * Lori Chung — general assignment reporter (2014-2023); Now anchors for Spectrum's National News Station
 * Lewis Dodley — anchor (1992-2024); retired
 * Gary Anthony Ramsay – anchor/reporter (1992–2007)
 * Carol Anne Riddell – reporter (1992–1996; later with WNBC)
 * Sam Roberts – host of "The New York Times Close Up" (1992–2017)
 * Neil Rosen – movie critic (1992–2017)
 * Melissa Russo – political reporter (1992–1998; now with WNBC)
 * Jeremy Schaap – political reporter (1992–1993); now with ESPN
 * Andrew Schmertz – Brooklyn and morning reporter (1994–1998); former business anchor- WABC; now CEO of Hopscotch Air, Inc.
 * Roma Torre – weekday afternoon anchor and theater critic (1992–2020)
 * Alicia Vitarelli – reporter; now with WPVI-TV
 * Erick Adame — meteorologist (2018-2022)
 * Ruschell Boone - reporter/anchor, News All Day (deceased)
 * Zach Fink — Albany reporter (left 2023)

NY1 Noticias
NY1 Noticias (pronounced as "New York One Noticias" and also known as Spectrum Noticias NY1) is a Spanish language regional cable news channel that was launched on June 30, 2003, as an offshoot of NY1. It is available on Spectrum digital channels 95 and 831. Like its English language parent network, NY1 Noticias covers general news stories primarily focused on the New York City metropolitan area, along with in-depth coverage of issues affecting the area's Hispanic population.

NY1 Rail and Road
NY1 Rail and Road (pronounced as "New York One Rail and Road") is a cable channel that focuses on the traffic and mass transit conditions within the New York City metropolitan area. Launched on August 18, 2010, the channel is exclusive to Spectrum Cable subscribers (carried on digital channel 214 in New York City, and digital channel 91 in New Jersey and the Hudson Valley). The channel features traffic and transit updates on five-minute intervals with separate feeds for Manhattan and Brooklyn, Queens, Staten Island, and the Hudson Valley, respectively.

Film

 * In the thriller Sliver (1993), a television in the building's laundry room broadcasts NY1.
 * In the crime drama The Yards (2000), NY1 reporters are featured reporting several events in the plot.
 * In the romantic comedy Maid in Manhattan (2002), a Mexican hotel maid impersonates a high-class woman having an argument with a politician.
 * In the comedy Elf (2003), NY1 is the station through which the story of an alleged Christmas Eve sighting of Santa Claus spreads throughout New York City.
 * In the documentary Super Size Me (2004), a NY1 report on the blizzard of 2003 is shown for several seconds.
 * In the comedy White Chicks (2004), the character Denise is an NY1 News reporter.
 * In the adventure comedy Night at the Museum (2006), NY1 is one of the stations that carries the story about dinosaur tracks leading into New York City's American Museum of Natural History. (The other station is WNYW, due to the fact that the movie was produced by 20th Century Fox.)
 * In the monster movie Cloverfield (2008), NY1's Roma Torre reports on the earthquake preceding the arrival of the monster.
 * In the science fiction movie Jumper (2008), various footage of the NY1's opening are seen.
 * In the thriller The Taking of Pelham 123 (2009), NY1 political reporter Michael Scotto appears briefly.

 * In the superhero film The Amazing Spider-Man 2, the NY1 logo is seen throughout the film.
 * In a post-credits scene in the superhero film Spider-Man: Far From Home, Pat Kiernan makes a cameo as himself and reports on a skirmish in London, in which Mysterio has framed Spider-Man for his murder through edited footage aired on NY1. NY1's news trucks, weather graphics, helicopter, and other reports were also seen throughout the film.
 * In the Liam Neeson movie 'The Commuter' (2018), aerial and other news footage can be seen broadcasting on TV screens with the Spectrum NY1 logo and graphics.

Literature

 * NY1 anchor Pat Kiernan appears briefly in Through the Grinder, the second novel in The Coffeehouse Mystery Series by Cleo Coyle.

Music

 * "That's It That's All," from the To the 5 Boroughs (2004) album by the Beastie Boys, contains the line "Like George Whipple on New York 1; Got a hairy ass and that's no fun." Whipple covered celebrity gossip and high society for NY1.

Television

 * Episodes of the courtroom drama series 100 Centre Street, the drama series Third Watch, the police procedural and legal drama series Law & Order (and its spinoffs Law & Order: Criminal Intent and Law & Order: Special Victims Unit) and the situation comedy series Spin City briefly show TV sets in the background that are tuned to NY1.
 * Episodes of the drama series The Sopranos feature NY1 television reporters and anchors.
 * The sitcom How I Met Your Mother featured character Robin Scherbatsky as an NY1 reporter, although the show branded it "Metro News 1." The character formerly co-anchored the network with Sandy Rivers, who reads from the newspaper much like NY1's Pat Kiernan.
 * In an episode of the sitcom 30 Rock, the character Liz Lemon mentions that one of her fears is having her picture shown on NY1 after dying alone in her apartment.
 * In Season 1 Episode 8 of Showtime's Billions, Pat Kiernan breaks news on NY1.

Podcasts

 * Pat Kiernan appeared on a taping of the Doug Loves Movies podcast starring Doug Benson at the Gramercy Theatre on October 23, 2011. The episode, which also featured actor Keith Powell as well as comics Jim Gaffigan and Michael Ian Black, was released onto the iTunes Store three days later.

title: NY1


text:
Talk:ISeries

Merge with AS/400
I'm not sure this article's existence is necessary, since the iSeries is nothing more than a rename of the AS/400, whose features and history are fairly well covered in the AS/400 article. I think having two articles that describe the very same system is confusing, which is why 'iSeries' redirected to 'AS/400' for so long. In a similar vein, i5/OS is not a `successor' to OS/400 but is, again, a renaming. Do some digging on IBM's site and you'll notice that `i5/OS' and `OS/400' are both used interchangibly to describe the SAME REVISION (V5R2 and V5R3) of the OS. Doubtlessly in the future the naming convention will be moved to i5/OS, but the name doesn't indicate anything fundamentally different about the system's design. Another concern is the line "Extremely reliable and virus resistent 9th Generation 64 bit object oriented operating system" since TIMI actually defines all pointers as 128 bits wide, which would technically make OS/400 (i5/OS) a 128-bit OS even though it currently runs on 64-bit hardware. Additionally, I'm not sure the term "object oriented" is totally appropriate. Though the system's fundamental interface is through the object, the term "Object Oriented" has come to mean something very different from the concept of Objects and Libraries in OS/400 terms.

Please input your thoughts! -- uberpenguin 14:28, 2005 Feb 7 (UTC)
 * Hmm... Not intending any disrespect for the authors of this article, but to me it sounds like little more than a marketing ad (almost all the images are taken from various IBM marketing overview pages for the iSeries).  It contains a large list of features praising the iSeries, but no criticisms or really any substantive reading at all; the "misconceptions" section takes an apologetic tone and only shoots down claims made against the system as trivial (what's more, several of the assertations made are dangerously broad).  The entire tone is pretty un-encyclopedic, and while it contains a lot of information, none of it is elaborated upon or clarified enough to consider this a useful article to the reader.  The article just throws information at the reader leaving them to sort through and make sense of it.

 * I don't want to just whine without suggesting solutions, and as I have already pointed out, the existing AS/400 article is better laid out and for the most part still applies to the iSeries. I think your efforts would be better directed towards expanding that article, since I still believe that it is wholly unnecessary to have two AS/400-related articles.  The people I know who are most experienced with AS/400s and iSeries still refer to them collectively as 'the four-hundred,' so in my mind the existance of this article is up for question.  If you feel differently or can shed some different insight onto this situation, please post back here.  Your work on this article is evident and valuable, but I'd like to make sure it gets directed to the proper location and is conveyed in a way that best reflects the ideal Wikipedia style. -- uberpenguin 05:36, 2005 Mar 20 (UTC)

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

title: Talk:ISeries


text:
Anthony David (neuropsychiatrist)

Anthony David FMedSci is a British neuropsychiatrist based at University College London. Previously tenured as professor of cognitive neuropsychiatry and Vice Dean at the Institute of Psychiatry, King's College London, since 2018 he has been Director, University College London, Institute of Mental Health. He is the father of Rebecca David, a Senior Campaign Manager at Influencer LTD and Michael David a junior doctor.

Education
Professor David studied medicine at the University of Glasgow, from which he graduated in 1980. Subsequently he had trained in neurology, then psychiatry.

Career
He has been an honorary consultant at the Maudsley Hospital, London, since 1990, and was awarded a personal chair from the Institute of Psychiatry, King's College London, in 1996.

He has a wide range of professional and research interests and has published on schizophrenia, neuropsychiatry, medically unexplained syndromes and neuroimaging – both structural and functional – and specialises in research into insight (awareness of illness) in schizophrenia and other disorders.

Professor David is a Fellow of the Royal College of Physicians, the Royal College of Psychiatrists and the Academy of Medical Sciences. He is a member of the Experimental Psychology Society and a founder member of both the British Neuropsychological Society and British Neuropsychiatry Association; he is currently Chairman of the latter. He is also an Emeritus Senior Investigator at the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR).

He is co-editor of the journal Cognitive Neuropsychiatry, and has published several academic books and one for the general reader published in February 2020, 'Into the Abyss: a neuropsychiatrist's tales of troubled minds' (Published by Oneworld).

title: Anthony David (neuropsychiatrist)


text:
Talk:Pleochroic halo

Bias
"However, Lorence G. Collins, J. Richard Wakefield and others have repeatedly and soundly rebutted the radiohalo evidence for a young earth in peer-reviewed publications." How do you qualify (or quantify) "soundly rebutted"? Isn't that a value statement of opinion? Also, there is no reference or futher statement regarding this. Justin Custer 08:47, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Also, though Gentry's work on radiohalos tends to support a young earth hypothesis, in is not necessarily ONLY about that hypothesis. Should this article, to be more encyclopedic, be limited to the discussion of the radiohalos and only mention the relation to the young earth hypothesis? Justin Custer 08:52, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

There are Ten Scientific Papers written by Robert V. Gentry that have been censored by the Los Alamos National Laboratory arXiv staff (now at Cornell Univ), according to Robert V. Gentry. Mr. Gentry states his scientific conclusions have not had the chance to have a proper scientific evaluation do to the outright rejection initially made by the LANL. If the conclusions made are reasonable, holding to the rigors of scientific scrutiny, the Big-Bang Theory will be proved false. Considering the social and financial ramifications this conclusion would have, it is plausible that the Scientific Community is in full support of any censorship of Mr. Gentry's findings. The alleged findings of Robert V. Gentry and report of censorship can be fond at http://www.orionfdn.org/index.htm. [User:James Phelps 05:33, 26 May 2011] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjammin1812 (talk • contribs)

 * (i) This issue is already discussed in Robert V. Gentry and arXiv. (ii) www.orionfdn.org is not even close to being a reliable source. (iii) Gentry's "unduly self-serving" statements about third parties are not usable per WP:ABOUTSELF. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:31, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

 * Ugh. This is not bias.  When a conclusion has been properly reached via the Scientific Method, the use of subjective adjectives like "soundly" is perfectly valid.  In this case, the word "soundly" is synonymous with completely and thoroughly.  In other words, the young earth "evidence" has been completely and thoroughly rebutted.  This is a valid statement of verifiable fact because even the most strict application of the word "soundly" would still apply given the sheer volume of meticulously analyzed and compiled data on the subject.

 * This article may be biased in favor of objective science, but I think that would apply to Wikipedia as a whole-- or any other credible encyclopedia, for that matter. Creationists who try to "dabble" in science often fail to understand that conclusions can be rendered and, when sufficiently reproduced, cited as fact; even if there may still be detractors.  The Scientific Method cannot function without some degree of subjectivity, which is why consensus and replication by other scientists are vital components.  If enough credible scientists (and yes, even "enough" is a subjective term) can independently confirm a conclusion, then it can be reasoned that many different interpretations of the subjective elements all yielded the same result, thus creating a probability that curves infinitely close to 100% as the consensus grows.  The fact that there are still detractors does not in and of itself mean that the subject is still "undecided."

 * Heh I just noticed how old that comment is. Oh, well.  I needed to say it.  This conspiracy theory nonsense about the "scientific community" censoring this Gentry guy-- the evidence being that he said so-- deserves to be rebuffed.  Sir kris (talk) 06:11, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Link to current sources, needed revisions
The sources for the article are not the most recent, but more important ignore some of the sources that call Gentry's work into question. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/po-halos/gentry.html provides a current article with citations to recent Gentry work as well as links to older and current articles that detail attempts to reproduce his observations and explain radiohalos.

The term is certainly better than what seems to be more common, po halos or polonuim halos. It appears that the halos are caused by the alpha decay of uranium, thorium, radium, radon, and polonuim. The element in the chain that Gentry pointedly ignores, even after contemporary scientists pointed to radon as the key to understanding the different halos seen.

In addition to the creationist controversy, the initial attempt to use the halos for geodating and the earlier discovery should be noted. I think this captures my current thoughts on this article. Now it requires figuring out how to organize the article and the emphasis on each point, especially in light of the controversy this purports to support. Mulp 16:47, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, the halos are not caused by any of those elements. You can measure the rings to find which elements actually caused the halos.  Anyway, I suggest that you reference to a peer-reviewed journal rather a website.EMSPhydeaux 17:56, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

 * I'm confused by your statement, "Well, the halos are not caused by any of those elements. You can measure the rings to find which elements actually caused the halos."  Could you please clarify, EMSPhydeaux?  Thank you.  Justin Custer 08:55, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

 * Sorry that I didn't get back to you sooner. Each element creates a different sized ring depending upon the radioactive element, because each radioactive element can shot out the alpha particles, which create the rings, to different distances (basically).  Anyway, we know the size of the rings caused by uranium, thorium, radium, radon, and polonium.  So, if we simply measure the size of the rings, we can tell that the element that caused the polonium-218 ring was polonium-218.  Also, the idea that we cannot tell the difference between radon-222 and polonium-210 is incorrect. The difference has been shown, and the results published in peer-reviewed journals.  So I'll be sure to correct the paper. EMSPhydeaux (talk) 20:52, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

 * "Also, the idea that we cannot tell the difference between radon-222 and polonium-210 is incorrect. The difference has been shown, and the results published in peer-reviewed journals."

 * Eh? Your basis for this, please? I thought this was the key point: that Radon222's and Polonium210's alpha decay particles have energies (5.486MeV and 5.305MeV respectively) that are so similar as to make the diameter of their rings - and thus the identity of their originator - indistinguishable.

 * There may be ways to 'tell the difference', but do they work on archaic remnants in ancient crystal lattices, where there's nothing left but the ring damage? Serious question.

 * If not, then the hypothesis that the rings are caused by radon atoms - inert, monatomic and subject to gas pressure laws - migrating through crystal defects makes much more sense than that the polonium magically appeared in place by fiat of a creator deity. --Cdavis999 (talk) 10:51, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

 * They are not indistinguishable. That's just another myth that naturally comes when an article uses rebutted work for it's source.  Here is a link to the Science article: http://www.halos.com/reports/science-1974-perspective.htm EMSPhydeaux (talk) 14:42, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

The elements mentioned in the link are Polonium, Radium, Thorium, and Radon (possibly others). It seems OK to me to cite that link, because its bibliography refers to many published papers and books. The Proceedings of the Royal Society are prestigious, and there are several citations to Science and at least one to an education journal. After all, if some person with a "cause" (such as young Earth, or maybe next time that Egyptian mummies were planted by extraterrestrials) you can't expect serious people to try to publish rebuttals in refereed works. We are luck that Thomas Baillieul managed to find serious refutations in prestigious journals and in apparently widely used textbooks. Of course, links can go away, so if somebody wants to copy the references into Wikipedia - go for it. Carrionluggage 23:56, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

 * The problem I have with the article is that it references papers which have been soundly rebutted in the peer-reviewed journals. If we actually referenced the peer-reviewed journals we would not have this problem of unverified information, but then again you would also find that all the peer-reviewed articles have been soundly rebutted and you couldn't make your case against the truth. EMSPhydeaux (talk) 14:42, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Necessary to explain Creationist connection
Previous deletion leaves the reader less informed as to why this rambling "debate" goes on and on. Gentry was reduced to letters-to-the-editor in Physics Today in the 1960's. His motive was then clear. He wanted to prove the Earth was young. Others (see main article) have answered him fully. The subject is virtually dead except that Creationists have singled it out for revival.Carrionluggage (talk) 21:14, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The subject may be dead in serious science discussion, but so is any debate over the fact of evolution - in such circles.

 * In the real world, alas, there are huge numbers of uninformed folk who actively distrust any science that contradicts their religious beliefs, and a host of organisations - some ignorant; some downright wicked - that have powerful platforms to spread their nonsense. They push the 'Po-Halo controversy', and similar discredited science, to bolster that nonsense. --Cdavis999 (talk) 11:04, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

That may be so. Nevertheless, references belong at the end of the article, and the comment 'an example of creationist pseudoscience' is editorializing, and shows bias. This is an encyclopedia, not a soap box.

The statement "The claims are contested by the mainstream scientific community" is enough for paragraph 1.

Deipnosopher (talk) 21:36, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

 * Is true NPOV possible, especially in subjects like this? Would a similar subject in which an apparently scholarly article proposed evidence for the existence of fairies, say, be given immunity from characterisation as pseudoscience?

 * ISTM that if an encyclopaedia allows discussion of religion-related matters (including Creationism and its better-dressed cousin ID) as anything other than mythology, then it has already stepped over a neutrality boundary, by giving credence to subjects that have been scientifically and rationally established not to be factual. --Cdavis999 (talk) 11:21, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

The description of how certain religious movements mention certain scientific phenomena should, as a general rule, appear on the Wikipedia page of the religious movements, and not in the article about the phenomenon itself, because we don't want to give undue weight to any non-scientific or discredited theories. Any objections to move the paragraph to Old Earth creationism or to a similar article? We can easily keep the link as "In Religion" or similar. –Jérôme (talk) 11:21, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Anomalous Radiohalos
I am thinking about changing the article to include the person who originally thought of the idea of SHE in relation to radio halos back in 1973. The term "anomalous radiohalos" is also a little vague. If I include the original source of this idea I think it would help everyone to understand the subject better, and the article the author published is also viewable for free online which is always nice. If there are any objections let me know here. EMSPhydeaux (talk) 14:58, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

creationist "pseudoscience"
Hmm...now here is a perfect example of an ad hominem attack being accepted as a scientific refutation of the evidence. Interesting, very interesting. Whenever I find such attacks to be the first and foremost in the line of debate, I always get the feeling that there must be some good science at the heart of the issue being attacked by this logical fallacy, as any real argument would be made directly at the science and the evidence.BreshiBaraElohim (talk) 11:09, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmm...Someone blanked out my one small sentence that suggested the evidence should speak for itself. Is the evidence really that good? I feel like the thought police are going to come knocking on my door next.BreshiBaraElohim (talk) 12:04, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

 * It was repetition: the previous but one sentence says "claims of creationist Robert V. Gentry[1] that radiohalos in biotite are evidence for a young earth (Gentry 1992)" and the deleted sentence said "let the science speak for itself" - which is the same thing and adds nothing to the more specific earlier sentence. Adding a citation to the earlier sentence is helpful Babakathy (talk) 12:32, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

 * LOL, nice sidestep. Its really not that big of an issue, in fact, I kind of like the fact that those of us who are still thinking outside the status quo are referred to negatively by the rest of the "scientific" community; It puts us right along side Nikola Tesla, Albert Einstein, and Galileo--an honor we have not yet earned.BreshiBaraElohim (talk) 09:29, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

 * Do yourself and everyone else a favour by actually reading the article. The case you are trying to make is made clearly in the last-but-one sentence. Your sentence simply said the same thing for a second time. Also, please read some of the links on radiohalos. Or links I showed you at Talk:Radiometric_dating. For example this explains that the halos can be caused by decay of U to Ra to Po and not represent original Po in the rock. In such cases there is nothing surprising about them. Direct quote In uranium ore-fields the extra uranium provides an abundant source of inert radon gas; and it is this gas that diffuses in ambient fluids so that incipient biotite and fluorite crystallization is exposed to it. Radon (222Rn) decays and Po isotopes nucleate in the rapidly growing biotite (and fluorite) crystals whence they are positioned to produce the Po halos.Babakathy (talk) 15:03, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Reference removed
I removed this link as a reference because it lacked proper authorship details and didn't follow the Harvard citation convention of the rest of the article. If someone can manage to figure out who wrote this and where it was published, it might be suitable as a reference. It doesn't seem necessary for the statement it was used to support: we have Gentry's book for that. siℓℓy rabbit (  talk  ) 13:35, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

 * That is Gentry's website. Other than that I don't know the context it was used in nor the publishing information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.27.219.56 (talk) 03:11, 10 August 2009

External links POV
Under "External Links", an anonymous editor changed "Favoring a young earth interpretation" to "Non-Scientific Sites". I'm sorry, but that's clearly POV. The other subheader "Disputing a young earth interpretation" was changed to "External links" which is redundant, given that the subheader is under the "External Links" header. If someone wants to change these headers, that's fine, but we shouldn't change them in such a way as to insert our own POV. I've never seen "Non-scientific" in the link section on any other wiki page talking about creationism. That's just blatant POV-pushing. Yeshuamyking7 (talk) 20:02, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Beta Decay
The article currently contains this statement: "(According to the standard theory, beta particles do not discolour the rock, although Baillieul (2005) suggests the need to reexamine the possible role of beta emission.)"

This seems to be unnecessary, and lacking support from mainstream science. I propose we remove this conjecture. Any objections? —Preceding unsigned comment added by EMSPhydeaux (talk • contribs) 22:18, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I have not yet read Baillieul (2005), but procedurally it should be read thoroughly before reverting text based on a cited source. It is preferable that a cited sourced be used to improve the article rather than simply reverting. Babakathy (talk) 22:57, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, I've read it: Gentry "discounted the possibility that beta particles may play a role in coloration changes within minerals; however, neither author gives a basis for this rejection beyond the erroneous statement that beta particle energies are too low to have any affect. High energy beta particles have the well documented ability to break molecular bonds. Combinations of alpha and beta decay particles, beta particles alone, or some completely non-radioactive process may be the cause of the observed mineral discoloration haloes." Point appears to be B says G ignored beta particles erroneously. Babakathy (talk) 23:09, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * That is the point he was trying to make, but this isn't even about "B" and "G;" this is about the cause of a natural phenomena. By saying "B" said something about this natural phenomena we are essentially putting the opinion of some guy who wrote a page on a website up at the same level as scientists who have done the research, and published their results in peer-review articles.  I think we can agree that we do not want to do this.  I suggest one of two things needs to happen: (1) We need to remove the statement, or (2) we need to provide a more reputable source than an article on a website.  Am I wrong here?EMSPhydeaux (talk) 06:03, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Have been unable to find the reference needed for the selection on beta decay. Gentry wrote this in his book: As Joly thought about which of these particles might be responsible for the halos, doubtless he quickly realized that the light beta particles would be unlikely to produce coloration changes in the mica, and that their zigzag paths could not yield sharp boundaries. This could be used, but the journal Joly published would be preferable. If anyone knows which journal this is, that would be great.EMSPhydeaux (talk) 06:09, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Superheavy elements
Relevance (and basis) of Schnier's work unclear: it is only relevant here if it provides new facts or interpretations of radiohaloes. Gentry postulated some SHEs might explained radholaoes and apparently Schnier's work says more about SHEs but for this article we need to know whether Schnier has anything to say about SHEs and radiohaloes - otherwise put the material on the Superheavy element page. Babakathy (talk) 23:05, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't have access to that journal, so I tried not to alter it. I'm willing to bet that Schnier's work is pretty much a rehash of Gentry's; maybe we should simply remove Schnier, and provide references to more of Gentry's publications on this subject as they are more easily accessible.  I was curious as to the reason the word giant was removed.  The fact that they are giant halos could prove to be important.EMSPhydeaux (talk) 05:39, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Why is this page named radiohalo rather than pleochroic halo?
I propose we make the page name pleochroic halos rather than radiohalos for the following reasons:

1) Pleochroic halo is a descriptive term about the observed phenomenon, while radiohalo indicates something about the commonly accepted theory of their generation (which could change... cause this is science). Therefore pleochroic halo will always be accurate, while radiohalo may at sometime become obsolete if a new theory of generation is commonly accepted.

2) At least the US geologic community prefers the term 'pleochroic halo' (this is the first place I have heard it referred to as such, and I'm a geology graduate student). However, as this page is British, the case may be different there.

3) 'Radiohalo' sounds like radio waves (low energy photons), when the radioactive damage is actually caused by β particles (He nuclei) and some γ rays (high energy photons).

However if it does not please the community to change the name, please at least put a redirect page from the term 'pleochroic halo' 130.39.188.140 (talk) 20:12, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

 * Hum, there's already a redirect? See pleochroic halo. As for the name of this article, wikipedia guideline says essentially "use the most common name". I don't know which of the radiohalo or pleochroic halo is most used, so I can't be of help here. Also radiohalo refers to radioactivity, not radio waves. I don't reall have an opinion on what should happen to this article in general. Feel free to be '''bold and edit the page.Headbomb {{{sup|ταλκ}}κοντριβς – WP Physics} 21:37, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Micrograph? Illustration?
Visual examples really help me to understand a subject. I find that their lack here makes me struggle to imagine the subject in my mind's eye. Are there no images available to use in this article or a researcher who could be approached to donate one? Thank you, and looking forward to seeing the topic, Wordreader (talk) 17:10, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Tags applied.
1. There is a total lack of inline citations. Authors: we are not psychic - provide the citations that you were thinking of when you wrote your text.

2. To me, this article provides validation of a very minor viewpoint. See: WP:Undue and note Mr Wales' feeling about this, third bulleted item: "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia, regardless of whether it is true or you can prove it, except perhaps in some ancillary article."

This forces me to ask, are pleochroic halos "real" phenomena or are they a creationist construct? This article, as stands, is a total befuddlement.

Discuss and correct. Thank you for your attention, Wordreader (talk) 18:37, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
 * They are real phenomena, but of course if you Google "radiohaloes" you'll come up with lots and lots of creationalist bollocks that makes me sick to my stomach. Ideally, the article would simply discuss the actual phenomenon, banish all the rubbish citations from Gentry, and note in one sentence that creationists have jumped on the bandwagon, and, as typical whenever they talk about a field they don't know anything about (which, come to think of it, might as well be all of science given how much of it you have to reject to believe in young Earth creationism), did not realise the obvious: 218Po is a daughter of 222Rn, which can diffuse away in the rock, far from the uranium it was born from, and thus start another radiohalo that appears to begin from 218Po. One would have to be a complete idiot to not accept this argument once it was stated, but I suppose being a serious young Earth creationist gives one a free pass into that category. (And this is accepting that the halo is starting from 218Po, which is by no means certain.) Read this – it's mainstream and will provide a breath of fresh air. Double sharp (talk) 04:18, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Radiohalo. 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 tag to http://www.vfmg.de/aufschluss_2-2010_Weber.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060625082326/http://www.answersincreation.org/bookreview/tnb/thousands_not_billions_chapter5.htm to http://www.answersincreation.org/bookreview/tnb/thousands_not_billions_chapter5.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) 11:21, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Creationism
Leaving aside the introductory lead and trailing sections, the article has two sections: "Production" and "Creationism".

"Production" has eight lines (and a table); "Creationism" has seven lines. This a ratio of material that is pretty close to a 50/50 balance. Is anyone seriously claiming that the "creationism" interpretation warrants a 50/50 share with mainstream science?

A huge proportion of Wikipedia use is by intelligent lay people coming to a new subject. What message does this 50/50 balance give to our readers? That the creationist view and mainstream research of radiohaloes are equally credible?

Could we rework this so that it is clear to readers that the creationist view is both very small minority (which it is, isn't it?) and has no(?) serious scientific support?

Feline Hymnic (talk) 15:17, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

 * I have done some reworking and consolidation of the "Creationism" section. This also clarifies that Gentry's starting point is the young earth model in which he believes. Feline Hymnic (talk) 09:34, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't see an issue with your recent changes. Thank you for working on this.  — Paleo  Neonate  – 05:54, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

The section is an embarrassment to this article -- specifically what sort of post-ironic imbecile would suggest "could not have been formed in molten rock which took many millennia to cool" and then immediately follow it with "such rock must have been created instantaneously"???? The "solution" here is a much greater leap of faith than the "problem" -- just obtusely stating "God can't cool down rocks but He can create new rocks instantly, obviously" how is this different than vandalism in what's supposed to be a science article? I'm compelled to delete this whole stupid section. Or maybe I should add a section about how my schizophrenic friend is convinced that radiohalos are caused by the Reptilians? Seeing as everyone's opinion is equally valid here apparently. Mcslinky (talk) 13:26, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The article actually says who suggested that: Robert Gentry. You are right that his ideas are far away from how real scientists think. You are also right that besmirching this article with creationist silliness may be inappropriate. The only excuse I can think of is that earlier versions were even worse: This is the very first. Later ones] had more details from creationist sources. Maybe it is time to say good-bye to Gentry? --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:13, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I love to play Devil's Advocate with new ideas but an encyclopedia is not a "compendium of random people's ideas". If Gentry [eg a "random person" / defacto non-scientist] deserved a mention here then so would the Last Thursdayists. 01:35, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Moved the article to the more common scientific name. The bit about Gentry's stuff is of interest to some, but rather irrelevant to the science. Vsmith (talk) 18:31, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Chopped the Gentry stuff and refs as moved them to the Gentry article. Vsmith (talk) 20:38, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * appreciate it I didn't want to delete it out of respect for the editors above Mcslinky (talk) 00:49, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

title: Talk:Pleochroic halo


text: Category:Latin-script letters

title: Category:Latin-script letters


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eliseus Lean

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was Delete. Rje 23:59, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

Eliseus Lean
Non-notable and vanity. jni 14:30, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC) This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
 * Possible attack page. ("He is famous for his femininity, commonly referred to by his peers as "that gay".") But generally sympathetic enough it might be vanity. Certainly, it's nothing encyclopedic; delete. Samaritan 15:43, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, non-notable vanity. --Idont Havaname 23:49, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, not notable - 1 Google hit for a blog, possible personal attack or prank. Megan1967 06:44, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)


text:
1998 FIFA World Cup squads

The 1998 FIFA World Cup was the 16th FIFA World Cup, a quadrennial football tournament contested by the senior men's teams of the national associations affiliated to FIFA (the International Federation of Association Football). The tournament was played in France from 10 June to 12 July 1998 and featured 32 teams divided into eight groups of four. Each team was required to submit a squad of 22 players – numbered sequentially from 1 to 22 – from whom they would select their teams for each match at the tournament, with the final squads to be submitted by 1 June 1998. In total, 704 players were selected for the tournament.

It featured players born in four different decades, the 1950s, the 1960s, the 1970s and the 1980s. The only other times this has happened at a World Cup was in the 1958, 1970 and 1990 editions.

Players' ages as of 10 June 1998, the tournament's opening day.

Brazil
Head coach: Mário Zagallo

Morocco
Head coach: 🇫🇷 Henri Michel

Norway
Head coach: Egil Olsen

Scotland
Head coach: Craig Brown

Austria
Head coach: Herbert Prohaska

Cameroon
Head coach: 🇫🇷 Claude Le Roy

Chile
Head coach: 🇺🇾 Nelson Acosta

Italy
Head coach: Cesare Maldini

Denmark
Head coach: 🇸🇪 Bo Johansson

France
Head coach: Aimé Jacquet

Saudi Arabia
Head coach: 🇧🇷 Carlos Alberto Parreira (fired after two matches, replaced by Mohammed Al-Kharashy for the final match)

South Africa
Head coach: 🇫🇷 Philippe Troussier

 * Andre Arendse (#22) was injured before the start of the tournament. His replacement, Paul Evans, was also injured shortly after arriving as a replacement. Simon Gopane was then called up, and sat on the bench for the last two matches.

Bulgaria
Head coach: Hristo Bonev

Nigeria
Head coach: Bora Milutinović

Paraguay
Head coach: 🇧🇷 Paulo César Carpegiani

Spain
Head coach: Javier Clemente

Belgium
Head coach: Georges Leekens

Mexico
Head coach: Manuel Lapuente

Netherlands
Head coach: Guus Hiddink

South Korea
Head coach: 🇰🇷 Cha Bum-kun (fired after two matches, replaced by 🇰🇷 Kim Pyung-seok for the final match)

Germany
Head coach: Berti Vogts

Note: Kirsten and Marschall also earned additional caps for East Germany (49 and 4, respectively).

Iran
Head coach: Jalal Talebi

United States
Head coach: Steve Sampson

FR Yugoslavia
Head coach: Slobodan Santrač

Colombia
Head coach: Hernán Darío Gómez

England
Head coach: Glenn Hoddle

Romania
Head coach: Anghel Iordănescu

Tunisia
Head coach: 🇵🇱 Henryk Kasperczak (fired after two matches, replaced by Ali Selmi for the final match)

Argentina
Head coach: Daniel Passarella

Croatia
Head coach: Miroslav Blažević

Jamaica
Head coach: 🇧🇷 Renê Simões

Japan
Head coach: Takeshi Okada

Player representation by league
The English, Spanish, Japanese and Saudi Arabian squads were made up entirely of players from the respective countries' domestic leagues. The Nigeria squad was made up entirely of players employed by foreign clubs. Only three teams, Japan, Mexico, and Saudi Arabia, had no players from European clubs.

Although Turkey and Portugal failed to qualify for the finals, their domestic leagues were represented by 18 and 9 players, respectively. Altogether, there were 38 national leagues who had players in the tournament.

title: 1998 FIFA World Cup squads


text: User talk:216.36.86.142

title: User talk:216.36.86.142


text:
Talk:Bancroft School of Massage Therapy

This page was voted on for deletion at Votes for deletion/Bancroft School of Massage Therapy. The consensus was to keep it. dbenbenn | talk 14:31, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

title: Talk:Bancroft School of Massage Therapy


text: File:Sbtd.jpg

title: File:Sbtd.jpg


text:
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Axon/Evidence

Offenses by Axon
Repetitive addition of POV to article Open gaming:

Re-arranging other people's comments on the Talk:Open gaming page to confuse attempt at resolution: (Axon calls this "reverting" them to their "original order" -- this is not the case.)      -- Bblackmoor 14:31, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * In my defence I would like to note that BBlackmoor has completely altered an old comment here, but kept the original timestamp  . His comment is in fact a completely original and is subsequent to mine own. I have no objections to having a dispute resolution notice posted, but I do object to this being do so as to censor and hide my own comments. --Axon 18:40, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Deletion of comments from Talk:Open gaming:  -- Bblackmoor 14:31, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * If you examine this edit, no content was actually deleted. Comments were removed from being interleaved with my own as I felt this was purely down so as to diminish the impact of my own comments --Axon 20:25, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Attempt at dispute resolution ignored:

Dispute resolution sabotaged by re-arranging the Talk: Open gaming page: -- Bblackmoor 14:31, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Dispute resolution was not "sabotaged": I once again attempted to assert order of comments by date descending but deleted no comments: titles, sections, capital letters et al were preserved. BBLackmoor's resolution itself notice was offensive and hostile. --Axon 01:32, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Comments from the community ignored:

Survey ignored:  -- Bblackmoor 14:31, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Nowhere does the survey or the community comments, other than BBlackmoor's own, actually contradict anything I wrote or any of my edits. The consensus was ambiguous as best and most certainly not in BBlackmoor's favor. --Axon 01:46, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Attempt at mediation ignored:  -- Bblackmoor 14:31, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Most recent undisputed revision
Axon may disagree, but I think the most recent non-disputed revision of the Open gaming article was made on 11:01, 2 Dec 2004 by User:Liftarn. -- Bblackmoor 18:18, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Notes on "Offences"
I don't really understand what the above alleged offences demonstrate, M'Lord. I would note that all it show is that I have been:

 * un-deleting content on the OOGL in response to content being automatically deleted by BBlackmoor (examples of blanket deletion of content without reason by BBlackmoor, all edits marked as "Minor":, )

, ),
 * editing for NPOV (POV and controversial edits by BBlackmoor again marked as "Minor":, , ,

 * the "survey" consists of a single individual who would seem to know little of the subject matter. the survey also concluded that my version, not BBlackmoor's, was more neutral, --Axon 18:21, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Incorrect. Brian Kendig was of the opinion that the section on the OOGL was interesting and relevant enough to include. The specific version of that section on which Brian was commenting had been edited by me to remove Axon's POV and leave only the facts (the relevance of which I disputed, but which I had unilaterally agreed to leave in place per the WikiTruce Axon never acknowledged). -- Bblackmoor 21:24, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Not true, Brian argued that the OOGL itself was worthy of note and that it should not be deleted, something BBlackmoor repeatedly has attempted to do - the "consensus", such as it could exist, was very much in my favour. After BBlackmoor could not longer delete the section his further edits were heavily POV in reaction. The WikiTruce was proposed and supported only by BBlackmoor and only so as to ensure his version of the article stayed --Axon 01:29, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * and re-arranging comments in their original order (examples of BBlackmoor re-ordering chat so as to give precedence to his own comments, marking many of his edits as "minor":    --Axon 18:21, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)


text:
Talk:The Duke of Edinburgh's Award

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:08, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Duke of Edinburgh's Award logo.svg

title: Talk:The Duke of Edinburgh's Award


text:
Talk:Foundation (engineering)

First sentence
"The foundation of a building is the soil or rock on which it sits. The footing is that portion of its structure that serves to transfer the weight of the building into the ground itself."

The first sentence disagrees with the second, (I don't think soil is a part of the structure) and the paragraph immediately following it.

A foundation supports a structure and transmits the loads into the soil and rock below. It is generally made from concrete and/or steel. The fundation isn't neccessariliy just the soil and rock, and a footing is a type of foundation.

Can someone please suggest a better opening sentence. If not, I will put one in myself in a couple of days.--Commander Keane 14:32, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You Spelt 'Foundation' wrong mate.

The foundation of a building must sit on structural material. This does NOT include soil. Any material which contains organics is not structural material. Rock, till, even dry clay but no soil. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.87.39.156 (talk) 19:19, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

The original wording matches Australian engineering documents (eg Australian Standards and the Building Code of Australia). In these documents, a foundation is the prepared/engineered ground or rock that a footing is built upon. A footing (generally a reinforced concrete pad or slab) is the structure that transfers load from the functional part of the building to the foundations. A footing is not a type of foundation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.210.91.153 (talk) 04:35, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

History
It would be interesting to read something about the history of foundations, e.g. "How did the Romans build their foundations?"

Foundation Design at Home Construction
The article Home construction has a link to Foundation design that I recently created that probably should be merged with this article in some way, as I didn't realize this article existed when I created it. The Home Construction article listed a dead link under "Foundation Design" and I went for it without looking to see if there was an article under the term "Foundation" until it dawned on me to check after I wrote it. The articles have some common points, but the article I wrote deals specifically with residential foundations as typically found in the USA and has more detail in that respect with the different types of residential foundations prevalent and an overview on each. Now that I found this article, I think it should be merged with it in some way, maybe as a section/sub-article titled "Residential Foundations" --- any thoughts?Marvtixx 02:00, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

 * It probably should be merged, after it's cleaned up. There are a lot of errors in the Foundation design article, mostly in assuming that the way it's sometimes done in some places is universal. I'll work on it when I get a chance. Argyriou 05:15, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

 * The foundation design article is a complete word-for-word copyvio from the url given at the bottom, and may well be deleted before you have the chance to merge them. Fram 14:34, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, Frammie, apparently you aren't too quick as you probably would have guessed that by my handle and the URL that I own the web page it links to, so apparently I have the authority to submit it. The Foundation article needs better content to address residential construction and needs more detail on foundations period. As far as the assumptions by Argyriou that foundation design isn't universal, virtually all foundation designs can be traced back to the ones I listed as direct offshoots. Besides that, the article didn't address every single method to create a residential foundation, only the most popular, and since any other variation is only an offshoot of these designs anyway; to argue otherwise is argument for the sake of arguing. What you need to do is come up with a more appropriate argument like why specifically you feel your edits are needed and what specific points are wrong instead of finding fault with an article simply because you didn't write it. Marvtixx 01:56, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

 * I am Fram, not Frammie, and please don't make unfounded personal comments. And since I didn't delete the article, I was obviously not the only one to feel that it was a copyright violation. You can choose any handle you like, that does not prove that you are the copyright holder. Please read our copyright policies. Fram 05:05, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Change Title
I think the title should be changed to Foundation (Engineering). Architecture doesnt really have anything to do with foundations. A) It's engineer's responsibility to design them so they stand up and B) 99% of the time you will never see one when the building is complete.
 * I'm inclined to agree, but how does one go about such a thing? --Zuejay 02:44, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Change the title foundation (architecture) to foundation (engineering)
A foundation of building is designed by a civil/foundation/geotechnical engineer but not by an architect. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kincth (talk • contribs) 13:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC).
 * I'm inclined to agree. If no one objects in the next 48 hours, I think the move should be made. Zue Jay (talk)  13:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Except that the foundations of 2-story woodframe houses are designed by architects in areas where the UBC controls. However, since the article is much more about engineering of foundations than the architecture of foundations, the move is appropriate. Αργυριου (talk) 16:50, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Done. -- Basar (talk · contribs) 05:35, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Monopile foundation
There are quite a number of Wikipedia articles that refer to "monopile foundation" but I can't seem to find any WP article (e.g., monopile, or monopile foundation, as of Sep 2009, both come up as red links) that describes a monopile foundation. Might it be possible for someone who is a geotechnical engineer/structural engineer/foundation expert to add a few words or a section to describe what one is and how they work? I see there are a lot of Google hits but an expert could probably best summarize the important ideas for a paragraph in this WP article on foundations. N2e (talk) 15:21, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

 * I have added a redir page for monopile foundation that will redirect to the page on deep foundations, where pile foundations are discussed. N2e (talk) 03:01, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

 * I have made a first-pass cut at a stub on monopile foundations by adding a section to this article. It needs a lot more work. N2e (talk) 19:03, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Base isolation

 * base isolation isn't a foundation. It is instead a flexible connection between dynamically independent parts of the structure, which may include the superstructure and the foundation. Therefore, this section doesn't belong in this article -- Mecanismo | Talk 21:14, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Foundation (engineering). 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/20110521095525/http://www.hornsrev.dk/Engelsk/Opstillingen/uk-fundament.htm to http://www.hornsrev.dk/Engelsk/Opstillingen/uk-fundament.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) 20:39, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Foundation (engineering)


text: User talk:84.140.210.46

title: User talk:84.140.210.46


text:
User:Kenj0418

 R  E   T   I   R   E   D ]

Left wikipedia on 12/20/2007

title: User:Kenj0418


text:
Phil Gallie

Philip Roy Gallie (3 June 1939 – 24 January 2011) was a British Conservative Party politician. He served in the British House of Commons as the Member of Parliament (MP) for Ayr from 1992 to 1997, and then as a Member of the Scottish Parliament (MSP) for the South of Scotland region from 1999 to 2007. He also held prominent offices within the Scottish Conservative Party.

Early life
Gallie was born in Portsmouth, Hampshire and was educated at Dunfermline High School in Fife. He trained as an electrical fitter before joining the CEGB as a planning engineer. He rose to be a station manager before entering politics. His political career began with being elected as a local councillor on Cunninghame district council, which covered northern Ayrshire and the Isle of Bute.

Parliamentary career
Gallie did not find success in his first two candidacies for Parliament. In 1983 he was beaten by Labour's David Lambie, and in 1987 he was defeated by Dick Douglas. He was elected as Member of Parliament at Westminster for the Ayr constituency in the 1992 general election. He lost his seat, along with all other Conservatives in Scotland, at the 1997 general election.

A vice-chairman of the Scottish Conservative Party, he was elected to the Scottish Parliament in 1999. Gallie was elected to represent the South of Scotland area as a list member, having narrowly failed to win the Ayr constituency seat by 25 votes. Gallie again stood unsuccessfully for the Ayr Westminster seat in 2001, but was re-elected in the 2003 Scottish Parliament election, again as a list member.

He later stood for the leadership of the Conservative group in the Scottish Parliament, but lost to David McLetchie, and instead became the Scottish Conservative's spokesman on constitutional affairs. He did not stand for re-election in 2007, intending to focus on his ambition of becoming a Member of the European Parliament.

Gallie was initially selected to contest the 2010 United Kingdom general election in the Central Ayrshire constituency, but Maurice Golden was eventually chosen as the election was not held until May 2010. Gallie was still active in politics when he unexpectedly died at his home in Ayr, on 24 January 2011, at the age of 71.

title: Phil Gallie


text:
Cwichelm of Wessex

Cwichelm (died c. 636) was an Anglo-Saxon king of the Gewisse, a people in the upper Thames area who later created the kingdom of Wessex. He is usually counted among the Kings of Wessex.

Life
Cwichelm is first mentioned in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle for 614: "This year Cynegils and Cwichelm fought at Beandun, and slew two thousand and forty-six of the Welsh."

Bede records that the attempted assassination of King Edwin of Deira, circa 626, was ordered by the West Saxon King Cwichelm, and does not mention Cynegils. In 628, Cynegils and Cwichelm fought King Penda at Cirencester. The Chronicle could be expected to report a victory, but does not, so it is likely that Penda was the victor.

The last mention of Cwichelm is for 636, when the Chronicle records: "This year King Cwichelm was baptized at Dorchester, and died the same year." Cynegils was also baptised at this time, by Bishop Birinus, with Oswald of Bernicia as his godfather. The final entry in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle concerning Cwichelm, in 648, states: "This year Cenwalh gave his relation Cuthred three thousand hides of land by Ashdown. Cuthred was the son of Cwichelm, Cwichelm of Cynegils." Cuthred may have been a sub-king under Cynegils and Cenwalh.

Relationship to Cynegils
The relationship of Cwichelm to Cynegils, and the question of whether King Cwichelm was a son of Cynegils is disputed. In the 648 entry originally referring to Cuthred, son of Cwichelm, son of Cynegils, the use of the Latin term propinquus (relation, kinsman) rather than nepos (grandson, nephew) is perhaps surprising. Barbara Yorke accepts that there was a single Cwichelm, and that he was Cynegils' son. D.P. Kirby notes that the evidence is weak, confused, and shows signs of later changes to the record. The evidence that Cwichelm was king of the Gewisse is unassailable, but the question of his ancestry and relationship to Cynegils, if any, is much less certain.

title: Cwichelm of Wessex


text:
Talk:MetroWest Medical Center

Untitled
This page was voted on for deletion at Votes for deletion/MetroWest Medical Center. The consensus was to keep it. dbenbenn | talk 14:34, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on MetroWest Medical Center. 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/20070520140647/http://www.mwmc.com/aboutUs/default to http://www.mwmc.com/aboutUs/default

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) 21:25, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

title: Talk:MetroWest Medical Center


text:
Category:Slovak tennis players

This category lists tennis players with Wikipedia articles who have notably represented Slovakia. Note that articles are sub-categorized by whether a player has done so in male or female competition, and also by particular notable competitions.

title: Category:Slovak tennis players


text:
Talk:Atlantis (board game)

I didn't know about the other article when I wrote this. They are the same board game, merely different localised versions. However, this article has some details that don't appear in the other article. - quote 193.167.132.66

title: Talk:Atlantis (board game)