text:
Roger Guillemin

Roger Charles Louis Guillemin (January 11, 1924 – February 21, 2024) was a French-American neuroscientist. He received the National Medal of Science in 1976, and the Nobel Prize for Medicine in 1977 for his work on neurohormones, sharing the prize that year with Andrew Schally and Rosalyn Sussman Yalow.

Biography
Guillemin was born in Dijon, France. Completing his undergraduate work at the University of Burgundy, Guillemin received his M.D. degree from the Medical Faculty at Lyon in 1949 and worked as a doctor in a small village in Burgundy, and went to Montreal, Quebec, Canada, to work with Hans Selye at the Institute of Experimental Medicine and Surgery at the Université de Montréal where he received a Ph.D. in 1953. In 1965, he became a naturalized citizen of the United States.

In 1954, Guillemin observed that pituitary cells did not produce hormones unless hypothalamic cells were present, supporting the theory that the hypothalamus controls the pituitary through hormones, dubbed releasing factors. Guillemin moved to Baylor College of Medicine in Houston to develop this finding. Andrzej V. Schally, known in the US as Andrew Schally, joined him in 1957. Their partnership dissolved after five years due to lack of progress and personal conflicts; Schally moved to the Veterans Affairs Hospital in New Orleans.

Both scientists then worked independently, processing large quantities of hypothalami—Guillemin used over two million sheep hypothalami, while Schally used pig brains—funded by the U.S. government. These release factors are present in an extremely low amounts in the hypothalamus, and it was hard to detect them using the instrumentation availbale at that time. Their rivalry intensified, particularly regarding scientific credit. In 1969, as government funding was about to be cut off, Roger Burgus from Guillemin's team made a breakthrough, identifying the thyrotropin-releasing factor (TRF), which controls the thyroid gland. This achievement secured continued funding and led to the identification of another releasing factor, FRF, which controls reproductive systems. Guillemin and Schally discovered the structures of Thyrotropin-releasing hormone (TRH) and Gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) in separate laboratories. They were awarded the 1977 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for this discovery.

In 1970 he joined the Salk Institute in La Jolla, where he was the head of the Laboratories for Neuroendocrinology until retirement in 1989. Here, he discovered somatostatin, and was "among the first" to isolate endorphins. Guillemin protege, Wylie Vale Jr., established hiw own laboratory at Salk in 1977; their attempts of finding releasing factors was described as "yet another furious rivalry"; Vale's lab was first to purify and sequence the CRF.

In 2007, Guillemin was an interim president of the Salk Institute.

Guillemin signed along with other Nobel Prize winners a petition requesting a delegation of the Committee on the Rights of the Children of the United Nations to visit a Tibetan child who had been under house arrest in China since 1995, namely Gedhun Choekyi Nyima, recognized as the 11th Panchen Lama by the 14th Dalai Lama, Tenzin Gyatso.

Guillemin turned 100 on January 11, 2024, and died in San Diego, California the following month, on February 21. He was married to Lucienne Jeanne Billard for 69 years, until her death in 2021 at the age of 100. The had five daughters and a son.

Awards and honors

 * National Academy of Sciences, 1974
 * Canada Gairdner International Award, 1974
 * Albert Lasker Award for Basic Medical Research, 1975
 * Dickson Prize in Medicine, 1976
 * Passano Award in Medical Sciences, 1976
 * National Medal of Science, 1976
 * American Academy of Arts and Sciences, 1977
 * Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine, 1977

title: Roger Guillemin


text:
Georgia Harkness

Georgia Elma Harkness (1891–1974) was an American Methodist theologian and philosopher. Harkness has been described as one of the first significant American female theologians and was important in the movement to legalize the ordination of women in American Methodism.

Harkness was born on April 21, 1891, in Harkness, New York, a town named after her grandfather, to J. Warren and Lillie (née Merrill) Harkness. In 1912, she completed her undergraduate education at Cornell University, which had begun admitting women in 1872. At Cornell, she came under the influence of James Edwin Creighton. She spent several years as a high school teacher before enrolling at Boston University, from which she would receive a Master of Religious Education degree and a Master of Arts degree in philosophy in 1920. She completed her doctoral studies in philosophy at Boston University in 1923 with the submission of a dissertation titled The Philosophy of Thomas Hill Green, with Special Reference to the Relations Between Ethics and the Philosophy of Religion, which was written under the supervision of the Boston personalist philosopher Edgar S. Brightman.

Harkness served on the faculty of Elmira College from 1923 to 1937 and of Mount Holyoke College from 1937 to 1939. Professor of applied theology at Garrett Biblical Institute (1939–1950) and the Pacific School of Religion (1950–1961), she was the first woman to obtain full professorship in an American theological seminary, and became a leading figure in the modern ecumenical movement. She became the first female member of the American Theological Society.

Harkness had an affinity for ministry through poetry and the arts. Her theological interests centered on the influence of the ecumenical church, eschatology, applied theological thought, and a desire for all persons to understand the Christian faith. She made clear a distaste for the doctrine of original sin, saying that "the sooner it disappears, the better for theology and human sympathy."

Harkness worked with the U.S. government during World War II; her experience lead her to reevaluate her liberal beliefs. During the war, Harkness demonstrated a more cautious view of theology and focused on the limitations of human knowledge and the need for humility.

Harkness was the author of over 30 books and gave her life to teaching. She won many academic awards throughout her life and devoted 20 years of her life to educating the ministry and advocating for women's rights within the church.

Harkness died on August 21, 1974, in Claremont, California.

Early life
Harkness was raised in a conservative family and found it difficult to hide her faith. Growing up in an extremely conservative family, Harkness concealed her belief and did not fully express her opinions on women's equality in the church until later in her life.

Education and career
Harkness received her doctorate degree at Boston University where she studied theology. She was one of the first women ever to earn her doctorate degree at Boston University and was well known for this achievement. After receiving her doctorate, Harkness taught at a high school level for six years and then went on to teach at a collegiate and graduate level for 39 years. During this time, she taught at Japan International Christian University for a year.

During her career, Harkness received many academic awards but was most known for her work with the church. She devoted 20 years of her life to educating the ministry and advocated for women’s rights within the church. The main thing Harkness taught in her theology classes included how theology was not solely a man’s domain and she aimed to teach how women are equal to men and need to be seen as equal within the church and theology field. Furthermore, She taught churchwomen to challenge traditional Christian beliefs and gave women a voice in the church.

Achievements
Harkness left a legacy as a pioneering theologian and leading advocate for women in the church as she allowed them to have a voice and challenge traditional Christian beliefs which cause women to be treated as inferior to men. In 1956, women were awarded equal rights within the United Methodist church in the United States and most of this was thanks to Harkness and her work on social justice.

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

title: Georgia Harkness


text:
Talk:Gabriello Fallopio

This needs to be merged with Gabriele Falloppio. DS 14:12, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Done. Redirected to Gabriele Falloppio because that name had more Google hits. Wiccan Quagga 12:59, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

title: Talk:Gabriello Fallopio


text:
Talk:Created kind

merge inappropriate
1) baraminology is analogous to taxonomy and cladistics -- the means of CLASSIFYING the kinds, while created kinds are analogous to evolution -- telling the "STORY" of the kinds. the merge would be analogous to merging cladistics with evolution -- surely not appropriate or necessary.  Ungtss 17:29, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

2) baraminology is a term coined by one creationist organization, and is by no means universal. "kinds," on the other hand, are universal.  all creationists agree on this page, but not necessarily on baraminology -- many of them won't even know what baraminology IS.

3) there would be no way to combine the two while furthering article clarity -- to describe the taxonomic classifications before describing what the kinds are would be ultimately meaningless, and to describe the kinds before baraminology wouldn't do justice to the title of the page.

thoughts, Schroederanon? Ungtss 14:14, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Obviously baraminology is the most well-developed idea associated with kinds (it's the one supported by ICR, from what I've read). We might decide to include baraminology here rather than include kinds over there, but I think there isn't a real need for two separate articles. If Kinds is more "universal" then the merge direction should be switched. Baraminology could easily be included on this page, I'd say. Joshuaschroeder 06:22, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * i repeat the point you ignored above: THIS article is analogous to "evolution" -- THAT article is analogous to cladistics. it is no more appropriate to merge these two articles than to merge those two.  Ungtss 16:53, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * The comparison is inapt. While there are tens of thousands of people who study mainstream cladistics and evolution in great detail, there are only a handful that make a distinction between created kinds and baraminology. Joshuaschroeder 01:07, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Then merge to creation biology the material that would be more appropriate there, rather than baraminology. The topic of this article just is not clearly distinct, and all very much smacks of 'whack-a-mole POV creationist screed of the week'. Alai 18:51, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Reworked this page
Please try to bear with me as I try to work out a better edit for this page. I tried to reincorporate all the material I could, but had to leave this out as I think it is not explicative (we already talked about the mechanisms creationists proposed) and the example given seems extremely ad hoc. I'm not averse to having material in here included in the article, however, on my first inspection I have not seen anything that indicates that these issues aren't well handled in the article.
 * mr. schroeder, this is an example and slow breakdown to EXPLAIN the idea in a way that people can understand. what exactly does "not explicative" mean?  why are you deleting good text?  provide BETTER text, but DO NOT DELETE GOOD TEXT.  Ungtss 02:43, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * First of all, the new gene for "blue eyes" is a misnomer as there is no such thing as a singe gene for blue eyes. There is a level of homozygosity within the most basic model of blue eye inheritance, but to be perfectly in accord with what we know about modern biology, such is not the sum total of the story. So to talk about it forming with "low probability" is virtually meaningless. More than that, the concepts of genetic drift and inbreeding are not explicative of homozygous traits, for example.

Removed
For example, a viable new gene for "blue eyes" would occur by mutation only at very low probability within the evolutionary model, and thus typically only occurs over a very large number of generations. Within the creationist model, however, the original kinds already had the capacity for blue and brown eyes, so in the generations after the flood, some would be born with blue eyes, others with brown. As populations spread over the earth and became reproductively isolated, those traits would become "set" within the populations. Speciation is held to be rapid on this basis, with genetic drift and inbreeding causing these heterozygous traits to become homozygous. The result is hypothesised to be speciation within the space of no more than one or two thousand years. It remains an open question for creation biology to account for all of the observed variation among the the proposed kinds by such a mechanism within the limits of mainstream genetics, as several of the kinds hypothesised earlier correspond to a far greater degree of genetic variation.

Joshuaschroeder 01:25, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Unexplained reversion
Aside from questioning why I removed the above, which is still in discussion, I have to ask why Ungtss wholly reverted my edit without comment. I understand that Ungtss doesn't like my editorial style, but it would be nice if he would make an illustrative list of things that were included in the previous edit that are not included in this edit so we can actually move forward rather than backward. Joshuaschroeder

 * because, grand inquisitor, YOU failed to explain it other than "it is not explicative." that is NOT an explanation.  the paragraph IS explicative.  it is clear and concise.  if it wasn't, you won't be deleting it -- because you're only interested in censoring things that make sense.  you WILL justify your mass deletion HERE before you impose your pov on the article!!!  Ungtss 17:45, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * SCHROEDER! YOU ARE THE ONE DELETING WITHOUT EXPLANATION!  THE TEXT IS CLEAR, CONCISE, AND EXPLANATORY -- it gives an analogy to EXPLAIN THE CONCEPT.  YOU DELETED IT CALLING IT "not explicative."  what does that MEAN?  WHY are you deleting it?  Ungtss 18:28, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Please stop shouting. I explained above why I deleted the text. Please respond to whatever other parts of the article you want preserved. Joshuaschroeder 18:36, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * <>
 * fine, we can change it to "a gene for blue eyes." Ungtss 18:42, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * This misses the point. This invents a hypothetical "gene for blue eyes" that doesn't work as we see, for example, the relationship between natural features and specific genes working in nature. Maybe a comparison to Medelian peas would work better as being a little less controversial? Still, a lot of the paragraph would need serious reworking.
 * There is a level of homozygosity within the most basic model of blue eye inheritance, but to be perfectly in accord with what we know about modern biology, such is not the sum total of the story. So to talk about it forming with "low probability" is virtually meaningless. More than that, the concepts of genetic drift and inbreeding are not explicative of homozygous traits, for example.
 * this doesn't mean anything. these are conclusions without facts.  there can be no response, because you haven't said anything.  Ungtss 18:42, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Ironically, this criticism of my response is exactly the criticism I was going for in the paragraph itself. If you can see, most of the explanations are themselves "conclusions without facts". My counterpoints also read that way because they are counterpoints to such beasts. Joshuaschroeder 18:54, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * that is plainly untrue. the paragraph uses an analogy to explain the concept very clearly and concisely.  what you wrote above was essentially, "It's wrong."  why?  Ungtss 19:06, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * First of all, talking about "low probability" with respect to developing a homozygous trait is meaningless without discussing how you know it's low probability. Have you measured a Bayesian analysis for such an event. Secondly, genetic drift and inbreeding are extremely involved genetic terms they do not provide for a mechanism for changing from heterozygous to homozygous. In fact, inbreeding will preserve, in a probabilstic sense, the type of genes available in the gene pool. Joshuaschroeder 21:20, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * <>
 * please stop vandalizing. Ungtss 18:42, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Vandalism is an indisputable bad-faith addition, deletion, or change to content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of the encyclopedia. Clearly, this is not indisputably in bad-faith, and I'm certainly not trying to compromise the integrity of the encyclopedia. Joshuaschroeder 18:54, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * you have consistently shown an unwillingness to work with other editors, evolutionist or creationist, relying on edit wars, VfD, and protection to get what you want. you were not demonstrating good faith here, insofar as you are deleting a large chunk of text without allowing for any discussion on the issue, despite repeated efforts to do so.
 * Edit wars, VfD requests, and asking for page protection to end an edit war are not instances of vandalism. I'm not sure what you mean by "without allowing for any discussion". That's what we're doing right now, discussing. Joshuaschroeder 21:20, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Ungtss, I'd like to tell you that I don't see any problem with the removal (which, in fact, were changes on the article, not a removal). You can disagree, but not attack. Also, stop writing on capital letters: it's like shouting. --Neigel von Teighen 18:47, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * what benefit does the deletion serve, insofar as it eliminates a clear example to demonstrate the principle in a way people can understand? Ungtss 18:49, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * (Thanks for not using capital letters). I think it was a cleaning up. I like how the article appears. (After some edit conflicts!) --Neigel von Teighen 18:56, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * how is it a cleanup, insofar as it deletes an example, and leaves a huge patch of empty white space at the top of the article? Ungtss 19:06, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * (moving to the left) The empty white space is a problem of the template, I think: I've made some wikifying, but it is still there. The article looks great to me, anyway: it explains anything in a great manner. --Neigel von Teighen 18:25, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Apobaramins and Polybaramins
The article doesn't really define the terms apobaramin and polybaramin, just gives a couple of examples (that I didn't find very illuminating). What's the criteria for what's an apo-, what's a poly-, and what's neither? (That they're both 'above' holo-s I got, so why is their 'baramin' status even interesting?) Alai 07:29, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * According to my little greek knowledge apo- is "over" (not hyper- "above") and poly- "many". --Neigel von Teighen 21:17, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * apo (stress on the o) means "from"/away from, and a major meaning is the concept of separation. So two creatures are apobaraminic if they not share common ancestry.  (Another meaning is "from" in the sense of giving the origin, but this is not the sense here, or in scientific terms in general.  E.g. the apogee is the point in an orbit furthest away (most separated) from the earth)   Anyway, I changed the definition to correspond with the Baraminology Study Group's paper Taxonomic Concepts and Methods 220.244.224.8 09:04, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You may find this February 21 version easier to understand. Apparently an apobaramin contains whole kinds grouped together, while a polybaramin contains parts of kinds grouped together. My view is that recent edits have made this topic even less clear than it was originally. --Henrygb 20:45, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * That helps... somewhat.  So polybaramin have effectively nothing to do with either created kinds, or indeed conventional taxonomy?  Or at any rate, they (in theory) would be agreed to be misclassifications in both schemes, whereas apobaramins would generally correspond to higher taxons/clades?  Alai 23:03, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * I don't know if baraminologists(?) would agree with your words, though I think you are roughly correct in one direction in that your examples fit the definitions, but in the other direction they might say there are other examples where a polybaramin was a useful positive concept, and an apobaramin may involve several kinds which have no relationship at all.  Perhaps someone who actually uses the language might explain. --Henrygb 00:17, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * The original definitions seemed garbled, and the new ones are at least from the horse's mouth. I don't much like these hybrid Greek/Hebrew neologisms, I must admit. 203.213.77.138 07:28, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Appeal to authority
In most articles, the appelation "Dr." is unneccessary. It seems that it should also be here. Likewise, indicating the specialty someone is in is only useful if that speciality is worthy of inclusion by being an alternative viewpoint outside the area being discussed. Since everyone in the article is presumably a developer of the "kinds" idealizations, there is no reason to include what their specialized employments are.

I understand that it is common in creationist literature to use the "Dr. So-and-so professor of thus-and-such and researcher in xyz at the University of Here-or-there", but that's not an excuse for including it here. Convention would dictate otherwise, I'd say. Joshuaschroeder 04:24, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * All the same, it is fair to mention that Hartwig Scherer is a paleoanthropologist by profession, and that Batten is a botanist. So these were fair appeals to authority, since their claims were in their fields.  203.213.77.138 07:25, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * This does not respond to the above objection. Revert will remain. Joshuaschroeder 14:15, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

New working
I have reworked this article and will try to clean it up more in the future. It is in much better shape than it was in before. I am considering merging this article with creation biology. There may be objections to this, but I think article actually states nearly everything that is the details of creation biology. The only things missing are disbelief in abiogenesis (which is at least off-handedly mentioned), and complexity arguments (which are really more ID-related conceits than they are "creation biology", at least from the reading I'm doing on the subject at AiG, ICR, etc.) Thoughts anyone? Joshuaschroeder 08:46, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Twoversions
I have removed the twoversions tag as it has been a number of days and there doesn't seem to be any sort of ongoing edit conflict. User:Ungtss seems to have adopted twoversions as his new tactic for editting pages with his pet versions without actually editting the pages. Joshuaschroeder 06:01, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * My "tactic" was simply an effort to save schroeder the effort of reverting every edit coming from someone who actually knows about this topic. he appears to prefer revert wars.  Ungtss 15:08, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Welcome back, Ungtss.
 * After looking at the new version that you posted I can only say that it looks like you haven't really considered closely what is needed for NPOV, nor did you closely read the last version. I'm not saying that the article is fine as it stands, but the vast majority of your edits seem to be moving in the wrong direction. There were a number of editorial deletions you made of creationist corrections to the article (for example, a creationist pointed out that humanity's kind may be associated with the genus). Then there is your attempt to provide a defintion that is free from criticism in the opening paragraph. While we shouldn't misrepresent creationist views, we also should be very clear that this is a view that is held by a very small number of people. Joshuaschroeder 16:12, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The other version of the article is not even pretending to try to be NPOV, it's just a pro-creationism piece. It starts out by saying Creation biology, which is an oxymoron if there ever was one, includes such bizarrely ridiculous POV-pushing statments as "As evidence that life was created in a superior form to life today", "The idea of created kinds was designed with the intent of providing a scientific alternative to the modern evolutionary biology" (taking a side that it is an honest attempt to be scientific, when they don't actually use the scientific method of follow normal science methods and just use scientific-sounding words to try to trick people into thinking it's science).

Most importantly, Ungtss' version tries to bury the fact that these creationists are basing their ideas on the Bible and that it's religiously-motivated. The fact that it's a religious movement that already had the answers it wants before it did any science and that it's not mainstream by any stretch of the imagination needs to be in the lead of any article that professes to be related to science, otherwise you mislead readers.

The whole two edits part is rather silly, as Ungtss has not even tried to make an article that meets NPOV guidelines and does not want to discuss or acknowledge specific problems but rather tries to ignore mainstream science and normal ways of writing things objectively in order to push his religious views. DreamGuy 20:29, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * Thus speaketh the voice of npov. and should anyone disagree with said voice, he would be a biased, bigoted, and hateful creationist, without regard to specific text which purportedly violates specific policies.  and should anyone attempt to edit the text of the article to remove blatant anti-creationist bias, he would be defacing articles.  let npov ring!  Ungtss 20:36, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * please identify which policies are violated by the text you are complaining about. not just "i don't like the tone" or "it's too sympathetic" or "I think all this is bogus."  please describe specific policies which you think the alternative version violates.  thank you.  Ungtss 20:41, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Specific policy: NPOV, in a HUGE way, as already described above. I'm not going to go around in circles with you again. It's pointless for you to claim I need to point out specific examples and reasons and policies when I already have, with direct quotes and so forth above. The fact that you refuse to accept them is your problem, not mine. DreamGuy 16:23, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

Purpose
Okay, fellas. In determining what the appropriate order of the article should be, and on the belief that articles should cover their primary purpose first, what's the primary purpose of this article that should be described first and in greatest detail?

1) to describe the model of biology held by creationists in a way that clearly explains the dynamics;

2) to make sure the reader knows it's religiously motivated;

3) something else; Ungtss 12:55, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * I think the purpose should be to outline the specific claims about created kinds that are employed by creationists in their writings while showing how the claims are pseudoscientific at best and incorrect at worst. Joshuaschroeder 14:42, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree with your first goal, but i'm afraid that your second one is an invalid purpose, according to npov. articles will neither state nor imply that a particular view is true or false.  You wouldn't want to explicitly violate npov, would you, schroeder?  Ungtss 14:45, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * You are incorrect in your view that my stated purpose is a statement or an implication that a particular view is false. There are definitely pseudoscientific claims and there are definitely incorrect ones. To that end, there is nothing in violation of NPOV. If you think there is, start an RfC. Joshuaschroeder 15:28, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * let's review, shall we?
 * <>
 * <>
 * Is it any wonder we creationists don't trust your judgment? you contradict yourself in fantastic ways.  you said the purpose of the page was to show how it was false.  then you said you didn't intend to imply that the view was false.  carry on, schroeder, carry on.  then you snicker and say, "call an rfc."  truly, as we learned from Kuhn, the majority is always right.  isn't that so, schroeder?  Ungtss 23:57, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

While we cannot outright state that it is false, it is not only a good idea but a question of basic fairness and intellectual honesty to point out near the top of the article that it "Created kinds" is primarily religiously motivated and not considered scientific by the vast majority of scientists, along with greater detail why down below. That's not us saying it's false, that's just telling the truth and letting the reader sort it out on their own. Those who are of the persuasion that science is bad and conservative religion is good with treat that information as if it's a positive thing for the field, those who are pro-science will treat it as a negative. Trying to hide the fact that it's based upon religion and extremely controversial and disputed is a bias toward trying to make it look mainstream and scientific when it is not. DreamGuy 16:16, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * as long as your particular and disputed "facts" are attributed to people who believe them, it's all good. similarly, creationists have a different take on all your above "facts," and their views must be documented as well.  Ungtss 23:57, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The Creationist view doesn't pass Occam's Razor (who, by the way, was a monk!!!!!)

Removed the "two versions" tag
I removed the two versions tag from the article. If Ungtss would go to the Neutral_point_of_view and go to the Giving "equal time" section, he would note that minority views do not automatically get equal time just because someone expresses a differeing view. That same page also has a section on Pseudoscience that makes it clear that NPOV policy does not mean only being able to say things in favor of a view on an article about it, it necessities making it clear when minority views are minority vies and pointing out when fields of study are considered pseudoscience by mainstream scientists. Thus Ungtss' minority view that the article should hide the religious motivation behind this topic and only summarize the views of those who believe in it instead of providing critical and necessary context to let readers know how unaccepted this whole topic is from the vast majority of experts is counter to Wikipedia policies. We also know from the FACTS vote for deletion (as well as the recent speedy deletion of the Template:FACTS_Creationism_Template that Ungtss made to compete with Template:Creationism) that creating new replacement pages to replace current articles in an attempt to get around the normal editing process is not allowed. That is clearly all that this "two versions" tag is trying to do, so, along with the clearly policy-violating pro-Creationism content of the alternate version, I removed it. DreamGuy 21:39, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * dreamguy. you're dreaming.  this article is supposed to be ABOUT creation biology.  it is supposed to describe the ideas of the field.  what's this nonsense about not giving minority views equal space?  when the article is ABOUT an idea, that idea should have MOST of the space.  Ungtss 21:43, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * It's funny how you only put the tag on the version that you don't like; it's missing from your preferred version. I wonder why...? -- ChrisO 22:05, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * It's not supposed to be on the other version. the other version is in the page history.  Ungtss 22:07, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ungtss wrote: ''":dreamguy. you're dreaming.  this article is supposed to be ABOUT creation biology.  it is supposed to describe the ideas of the field." '' And the version you are oppposed to does that as well. The reason you are opposed to it is not because it doesn;t describe it, but because it describes it in less than glowing terms. Read the text on the page about Neutral point of view. Note that it is not listed as suggestions or semi-policy but full-on policy that people here must follow. It VERY CLEARLY states that articles are not supposed to solely describe all theories as if they were equally accepted, it says it's NECESSARY to include information about topics that are fringe beliefs indicating that they are not mainstream. There is NO WAY anyone can actually read the policy and honestly claim what you are saying. NONE.

Ungtss adds: "what's this nonsense about not giving minority views equal space? "

IF YOU'D READ THE POLICY YOU WOULD KNOW. The section on Giving "equal time" very clearly states that we DO NOT give "equal space" to everything that comes along, because that gives a biased impression that the topic is mainstream if it is not. Topics that are considered fringe beliefs and pseusoscience by mainstream science and so forth must be clearly labeled as such. Drastically minority views do not get equal time, as that would falsely imply that 50% or more sources agree with them, which is false. READ THE POLICY. It's in black and white. DreamGuy 02:42, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

Revert
Somehow, in all the hubub, Ungtss' POV version made it to the frontpage. I have reverted it to the version that was agreed upon before he reentered the fray. We can start from there. Joshuaschroeder 00:57, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * You went a little too far back so I moved it up a couple. The problem popped back up with the "16:45, Apr 11, 2005 ChrisO (Rewritten top two sections)" edit that didn't rewrite the top two sections of the current approved section but restored the version thatwas going against Wikipedia policy and the consensus of the editors. DreamGuy 02:29, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

 * I can tell you didn't read it too closely - it was an attempted hybrid of the two versions, not a restoration of Ungtss's version. With all the reverting, all of you are getting dangerously close to the 3RR limit. I've restored my edits, but please read the thing before you hit the rollback button in future. -- ChrisO 07:19, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Well, we're supposed to assume good faith, so when it restored large parts of Ungtss' biased version, I assumed it was a mistake and not something intentional. By the way, I'm nowhere close to violating the three revert rule. I've got one revert in the last 24 hours, and even that one is questionable as the minor changes between the two versions were things I had entered by hand previously which got erased in the rollback. I think your version needs cleaning up on some major points, but instead of reverting it so you can revert it again I'll see if you or Joshua want to try to come up with a better version. DreamGuy 08:11, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * Perhaps if you assumed good faith, you'd realize that his version didn't bear any resemblence to mine, but was a solid, good faith stab at npov. if you look a little closer, you might realize that the version you're supporting is grossly pov. Ungtss 13:21, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

blind reverts.
this article is about created kinds, not baraminology. the information about created kinds should come first. i've edited accordingly. Ungtss 12:19, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Proving a negative...
"The creationist challenge is even more difficult, as it is forced to prove a negative -- that is -- to provide evidence that all life is not related."

Why is either side of this any more difficult to prove in principle? The "proving a negative" cliché frankly pales compared to more pertinent considerations like the state of the evidence (which certainly poses a difficulty, I'd think), and questions of falsifiability, as this whole "your guess is as good as ours" section rather illustrates. Some evidence that creationists are even interested in addressing this issue would also be pertinent. Alai 05:18, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
 * you're right. i'm reading up on it right now -- found some baraminology papers that will provide a framework -- i'll put most of it on baraminology tho.  Ungtss 05:31, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Wolphin
Though I have really no idea what it has to do with the article, isn't the caption on the Wolphin picturea bit misleading? As I understand it, the "wolphin" is a cross between a false killer whale and a dolphin, not a killer whale and a dolphin. The former is actually just another type of dolphin, not a true whale. Anyway, I am adding the "false" in there. --Fastfission 22:27, 23 May 2005 (UTC) A killer whale is also a type of dolphin, not a whale.--Spyrral 20:46, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Rhaphanobrassica
Rhaphanobrassica is an allopolyploid, not a hybrid. There is a hybrid plant between the two genera, but it is sterile. I debated whether to explain this in the text or just delete Rhaphanobrassica. I decided that since it is not a true hybrid, it is best deleted. Ted 01:10, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Baraminology merge
Merged the two, but there was a copyvio in the definition of terms, (with http://www.bryancore.org/bsg/aboutconcepts.html) so I had to remove it. I also removed some single-source material apparently based on the same site. However, I can't guarantee that anything from that article actually makes a lick of sense, and, frankly, think that's probably the whole point - to wow with hard-too refute (as over-complicated) arguements. Adam Cuerden talk 01:41, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

 * Oh, yes. And I'm afraid the merged material is terribly POV for the obfuscatory material. The scientific consensus scarcely gets a look in. Adam Cuerden talk 01:43, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

ReMine
''Walter ReMine (1990 & 1993) argued that three conditions are each individually sufficient to place two organisms within the same monobaramin. (1) The hybridization criteria, (2) The ability to experimentally demonstrate (in comparable living organisms) a degree of biological change that approximately meets or exceeds the difference between the two organisms under inspection. For example, if the two organisms differ only by color, then they would be placed into the same monobaramin, because color-change is experimentally demonstrated (in many organisms), and (3) a clear-cut lineage linking the two organisms under inspection, where a clear-cut lineage is observed as: a long, narrow, trajectory (usually through morphology-space, since morphology is typically all that fossils provide), with a void (or absence of data) orthogonal to the trajectory. If those three criteria fail, then that is sufficient to place the two organisms into separate apobaramins. ''

''ReMine proposed that a holobaramin be defined as "a complete set of organisms related by common descent." This definition, together with the three above criteria, is sufficient to identify holobaramins. ReMine 1993 argued that the classification of the actual "first created organisms" is needless and fruitless, because we cannot determine these even if we held its fossil in our hands. He argued that the actual "first created organisms" are a theoretical idea, suitable for theorizing, but not suitable for observing or classifying. By his definition, two identical organisms that were the first created organisms of their kind would be classified together, without special status, within the same monobaramin.''

Besides making no sense, this seems to come down entirely to summaries of two short articles published in Creaation Science journals. I think the main source is probably this one: http://www.bryancore.org/bsg/opbsg/002.pdf Thoroghly non-notable, and barely literate writing to boot.

This does leave the question: What SHOULD go in? Adam Cuerden talk 01:54, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Creationism and Common descent
Please vote on the relevance of this section on the article common descent. -- Pbarnes 03:24, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

"Hypothesised kinds" section
I honestly don't think this is all that maintainable or encyclopedic, particularly as only one of them is referenced. Would anyone object if I made it more general, keeping mainly Humanity, and a little discussion elsewise. Adam Cuerden talk 16:10, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Unsalvagable sections
I don't think these two sections are salvagable - permeated with POV, a certain amount of cruft... I'm going to rewrite something on cthe view of Hybridisation from scratch. Adam Cuerden talk 16:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Boundaries between kinds
The asserted boundaries between the kinds -- the position that the kinds are unrelated -- is arguably the most divergent view of creationists from mainstream biology. Those challenging creation biology often ask what basis creationists have for asserting that such boundaries exist, or for determining what those boundaries are.

The project of determining the precise boundaries between the kinds is not agreed upon by creationists. Creationists generally assert that conclusions about common ancestry should only be drawn if there is "substantial evidence" to support the conclusion. As to what qualifies as "substantial evidence", creationists are often at odds with each other. However, they are in unanimous agreement that humans and other extant primates are not in the same kind.

In the absence of the ability to directly observe life in its original form, classification of kinds generally revolves around reproductive compatibility -- that is, created kinds are generally seen as having common descent if they are reproductively compatible.

The classification is more difficult when reproductive compatibility is partial, as in the case of the mule, a hybrid of the horse and the donkey which, although viable, is not fertile. While it is possible that the two species descend from a common ancestor due to their reproductive compatibility, it is also possible that they do not, but were created separately with reproductive systems similar enough to create viable offspring, but not similar enough to create fertile offspring.

Other criteria for common ancestry are rejected. The mere fact that organisms are alive is not seen as evidence of common ancestry. Genetic and physiological similarities are not seen as evidence of common ancestry, but rather are thought to result from a similar design being used on different "kinds." There is normally no justification offered as to why reproductive compatibility shouldn't be viewed in the same way, though there are references made to biblical verses such as "go forth and multiply" -- the command given by God to Noah's family after the flood.

Hypothesized kinds
Creationists have proposed a handful of possibilities for the created "kinds":

 * Humanity — Creationists reject any and all claims of evidence for a common ancestor between homo sapiens and other great apes. Creationist Sigrid Hartwig-Scherer concluded that H. erectus/ergaster, Neandertals and H. sapiens were members of the same basic type (which corresponds to a monobaramin) Homininae with the fossils called Australopithecus afarensis, A. anamensis, A. africanus, A. robustus, A. aethiopithecus, A. boisei and possibly Ardipithecus ramidus assigned to another basic type, Australopithecinae.
 * Felidae — Creationists from Answers in Genesis and the Institute for Creation Research have proposed that the original kinds were comparable to the Liger and the Tigon.
 * Canidae — Similar to the kind associated with cats, it is proposed that all canines had a common ancestor.
 * Camelidae — Including both the camel and the llama, which are reproductively compatible, their hybrid offspring being known as "Camas".
 * Crocodilia — Including all the varieties of alligator, crocodile, and gharial.
 * Elephants: African elephant (Loxodonta africana) and Asian elephant (Elephas maximus) can mate and produce offspring, albeit short-lived, although they are officially classified as different genera.

Thus the created kind corresponds roughly to the family, and possibly even the order with the notable exception of humanity.

Creationists also point to known examples of hybridization to argue that the kind is broader than the biological species, and sometimes even than the genus. For example:
 * Kekaimalu the wholphin is a fertile hybrid of two different types of dolphin, the false killer whale (actually a kind of dolphin), and bottlenose dolphin. Kekaimalu herself gave birth to a calf, showing she was a fertile hybrid.  Thus these creatures classified as different genera are really a single polytypic (many-type) species.
 * Bos (true cattle) and Bison (American buffalo) can produce a fertile hybrid called a cattalo. Bos and Bison are thus likewise the same polytypic species although they classified as different genera.
 * The creationist Don Batten helped create a hybrid of the fruit species lychee (Litchi chinensis) and longan (Dimocarpus longana), again classified as different genera.

A canonical list of kinds has not been constructed and such examples are extremely provisional (with the exception of humans, on which there is a strong creationist consensus).

Creation biology looks to the animals visible in the fossil record (which creationists interpret as having mostly been laid down during the flood) as evidence that antediluvian life was much more diverse than life today. They reject the dating methods of paleontologists and geologists that determine the age of fossils from the order of the fossil record and instead believe that almost all fossils were deposited in a single catastrophic flood event and were sorted out by processes associated with the flood. (See flood geology for more on this topic.)

 * What are the POV issues you see in this section? Ungtss 03:59, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I should've been clearer: This section, as opposed to the other, is more unmaintainable than POV. There's no real agreement about kinds, except with a few groups, so this is effectively setting out to name anything anyone had ever called a kind. We can't really do that, so it's better to instead be a bit more general. Adam Cuerden talk 05:17, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

"Baramin" Doesn't even get the basic Hebrew right
Syntax aside, "Bara" (ברא) does mean "Created" in Hebrew, but in the active verb sense of it. Passive "created" is "Nivra" (נברא), or "Nivre'u" (נבראו) in case you're referring to something in the plural, as the intent seems to be here.

"Bara min" literally means "(He) created a species". --AceMyth 14:55, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Merge from Baraminology
As proposed by User:9SGjOSfyHJaQVsEmy9NS at Talk:Baraminology, I've re-created this article and merged Baraminology into it, since created kinds are the primary topic. There are a few ways I'd like to try and improve this article, but before I do I'd like to make sure nobody objects to how I handled the merge itself. --Captain Occam (talk) 15:21, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Myth vs narrative
Wikipedia is supposed to be unbiased, so why does the link to the creation narrative page use the word "myth" instead? I propose changing it to "narrative" to retain some semblance of neutrality. In fact, the entire article has a very biased tone all around, aided by its word choices like "myth" vs "narrative." Tom Georges (talk) 10:20, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * From WordNet, Myth: "n : a traditional story accepted as history; serves to explain the world view of a people". — Paleo  Neonate  – 13:33, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Creationist/creationary
"Creationary literature" gets about 40 google hits, while "creationist literature" gets about 25600 hits. Say what you like about the validity of the measurement, a disparity on the order of nearly three orders of magnitude seems persuasive. Hans-Friedrich Tamke is now at 4RR, and I am not willing to continue what looks like an edit war of the lamer sort. In his most recent edit summary, he tries to establish an equivalence with "evolutionist/evolutionary" which seems like a stretch, to put it politely.

This looks like an attempt to promote novel vocabulary. Wikipedia is not the place for that. Just plain Bill (talk) 03:26, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * You are completely right, and I removed all the creationaries. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:35, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * It was also used in a few other articles. Not any more now. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:43, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Most of them had been introduced by now indeffed sockpuppet User:OtisDixon in 2016. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:11, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Much appreciated, thanks. Just plain Bill (talk) 13:11, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Creationary (kreationär)? Das ist streng verboten! Hans-Friedrich Tamke (talk) 01:33, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Popularizing newly invented words (or trying to popularize existing very uncommon words) by smuggling them into Wikipedia articles is indeed streng verboten. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:12, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Are any (or all) of these words permitted or not permitted on Wikipedia or will the “self-appointed” (unabashedly and openly biased) censors delete them if unpaid volunteer editors dare to use such “streng verboten (absolutely / strictly forbidden)” words? For example: the adjective creationary (such a rare,  nasty, unacceptable, and absolutely forbidden) word must be changed or preferably deleted from all Wikipedia articles, and no one (creationist or evolutionist) should ever be permitted to learn or use (see, read, hear or say this word, see catch-22), especially in a sentence such as: “The human eye is an excellent example of creationary design” (true or untrue / false?). By the way, neither creationist nor creationistic (of or relating to a creationist / creationists or creationism; compare the terms: evolutional, evolutionary, evolutionist, evolutionistic, evolutionism) are true synonyms for either the adjectives creational or creationary (of or relating to creation)). Haben Sie das verstanden? (Did you understand that?) Are the words: noncreationary / non-creationary; anticreationary / anti-creationary, procreationary / pro-creationary; alethocreationary / aletho-creationary (true creationary), pseudocreationary / pseudo-creationary (false creationary) (there are many other rare words, e.g,. alethonym (an uncommon word), pseudonym (a common word), see also Latin: sabbatismus, from Ancient Greek: σαββατισμός (sabbatismós), meaning “Sabbath-keeping / Sabbath observance” and remarkably this word is used only once in the entire Bible, Hebrews 4:9 of the New Testament); precreationary / pre-creationary, postcreationary / post-creationary all forbidden on Wikipedia? The online Oxford English Dictionary (OED) documents that James Hutchison Stirling knew and used “creationary” way back in 1894. What about using or popularizing “newly invented” or “very uncommon” words on Wikipedia? No problem. It just depends on which words you choose to use and “popularize”. For example, see these terms (with multiple spellings): intersectional, intersectionally, intersectionalism, intersectionalist, intersectionality; heteronormative / homonormative, heteronormatively / homonormatively, heteronormativity / homonormativity, heterophobe / homophobe, heterophobic / homophobic, heterophobia / homophobia, heterophobism / homophobism, cisgender (cissexual, cis, cissexism, cisnormativity) / transgender (transsexual, trans, transsexism, transnormativity), cisgenderism / transgenderism, cisfeminist (Google results) / transfeminist, cisfeminism (Google) / transfeminism (trans feminism, trans-feminism), cis man (cisman, cis-man) / trans man (transman, trans-man), cis woman (ciswoman, cis-woman) / trans woman (transwoman, trans-woman), cis boy / trans boy, cis girl / trans girl, heteropatriarchal / homopatriarchal (Google, Wiktionary), heteropatriarchy / homopatriarchy (Google, Wiktionary), polyamorous, polyamorously, polyamory. Creationists and evolutionists, please expand your vocabulary. Have an excellent day! Hans-Friedrich Tamke (talk) 02:39, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * This WP:WALLOFTEXT was boring in the first line, then become unbearably boring in the third, so I stopped reading. If you want to tell people something, be more concise. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:23, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Check out these newly invented words / very uncommon words / initialisms that you ought to change or delete on Wikipedia: anarcho-transhumanism, anarcho-transhumanist, cisheteropatriarchy, cisheteropatriarchal, techno-progressivism, techno-progressivist, LGBT (alphabet soup: GLBT, LGB, LGBTQ, LGBTQIA, LGBTQQ, LGBTI, LGBTIQ, LGBT+, LGBTQIA+, LGBTTQQIAAP, LGBTTIQQ2SA, QUILTBAG, MOGII, MOGAI). Be consistent. Apparently, as an anonymous cis male (?) user (even with a pseudonym) you are still afraid of the charge of homophobia / transphobia and won’t change or delete any of the above terms, but the adjective creationary and its derivatives are always and forever “streng verboten” and evolutionary and its derivatives are always and forever permitted. Hans-Friedrich Tamke (talk) 17:58, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh, all those started out by Wikipedia editors illegally inserting them into Wikipedia articles to make them popular, like "creationary"? If that is true, that's too bad. Maybe we can still stop some of them, but it seems to be too late for others; I am sure I encountered them somewhere else. You should have said something earlier. At least, we nipped "creationary" in the bud, so, it's not all bad. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:09, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Search and destroy (your mission is not yet complete): “The Sabbath truth they felt was from God Himself, who after six days of creationary work, blessed, sanctified, and rested on the seventh day as His only Sabbath (Genesis 2:2-3).” Hans-Friedrich Tamke (talk) 22:39, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, the word "creationary" exists in English. That does not mean it is appropriate in this article as a substitute for "creationist" in "creationist literature". Just plain Bill (talk) 23:21, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Is the biblical Book of Genesis “creationary literature” or “creationist literature”? Is the On the Origin of Species “evolutionist literature” or “evolutionary literature”? If the human eye is indeed a product of creation, then I would say it is an excellent example of “creationary design”, not “creationist design” (this makes no sense). The adjectives “creationary, creationist (creationistic)” and “evolutionary, evolutionist (evolutionistic)” are not exactly synonyms (they cannot always be interchanged). Unfortunately, most advocates of creation or evolution don’t even know of the existence of the adjective “creationary”, so how are they going to use an unknown word? They need to expand their vocabulary. Some people refuse to do this and attempt to prevent others from learning and then using this word. What are they afraid of, competition in ideas? Have a great day! Hans-Friedrich Tamke (talk) 00:39, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
 * "Genesis" is religious literature. "Origins of Species" is scientific literature. "Darwin on Trial" is creationist (so, pseudoscientific) literature. I don't think "evolutionary literature" exists, since the word makes little sense in that combination. And "evolutionist" is, of course, a propaganda term that tries to drag a scientific idea down to the ideology level by pretending it is an -ism like creationism.
 * It is not Wikipedia's job to expand people's dictionary. And it is not this page's job to discuss general subjects. This page is for improving the article "Created kind" and for no other purpose. So, could you please continue your mission in a more appropriate place? --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:02, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
 * For the record, I've undone an attempt by Hans-Friedrich Tamke to sneak 'creationary' into Theistic evolution. -- Jmc (talk) 02:39, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Theistic evolution, theistic evolutionism or God-guided evolution are views that regard religious teachings about God as compatible with [the] modern scientific understanding about biological evolution.

Theistic evolution, theistic evolutionism, creationary evolution (cf. evolutionary creation) or God-guided evolution are views that regard religious teachings about God as compatible with [the] modern scientific understanding about biological evolution.

Can you please explain to me the difference in meaning between the terms God-guided evolution and creationary evolution? Are you saying that the terms theistic evolution or God-guided evolution do not essentially mean the same thing as creationary evolution. Have you never heard religious people who believe in a Creator God say: “God’s method of creation is evolution”? I did not sneak ‘creationary’ into the article “Theistic evolution”. I openly added the words [creationary evolution (cf. evolutionary creation)] to the sentence. For the record, I am not an anonymous editor like so many on Wikipedia. Again compare the search results for the parallel adjectives: creationary* (Results 1 – 6 of 6); evolutionary* (Results 1 – 20 of 33,502). The webpage Evolutionary psychology on Wikipedia uses the adjective “evolutionary” about 340 times alone. Do you evolutionary editors of Wikipedia just have a hate-on for the adjective creationary? Do we creationists (and presumably evolutionists) have a list of forbidden words that we cannot use on Wikipedia, and is the word creationary one of them? Who has come up with this list? Hans-Friedrich Tamke (talk) 04:55, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is based on reliable sources. You can't just replace words by other words because you like the other word better. If you don't have a reliable source that says that your word is an alternative, your word stays out. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:58, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
 * @Hans-Friedrich Tamke If you wish for my answer to your questions about my undoing of your insertion of "creationary evolution" in the Theistic evolution article, please take them to Talk:Theistic_evolution (to anticipate, my answer will be along the lines of Hob Gadling's well-made point about the necessity of a reliable source). -- Jmc (talk) 22:01, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:Created kind


text:
Talk:1983 Progressive Conservative leadership election

Untitled
I made a mistake in moving this page, so go here to see its history prior to my mistake. I did originate this article, but it has benefited from the contributions of others, and I don't want to take credit for the whole thing. Kevintoronto 14:13, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Oldpclogo.GIF
Image:Oldpclogo.GIF is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:47, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:British Columbia Liberal Party leadership contest, 2011 which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. 117Avenue (talk) 03:00, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Info bar at top
Any thoughts on the proposed info top box with all candidates faces/ballot totals? Aside from weird insinuations I hate America(?!?!)?

-It's confusing listing all four ballots at once;

-It doesn't convey the details of the convention

-All the numbers are repeated twice already, once in an easy-to-read chart at the bottom and elsewhere in the text;

And, by comparison, US conventions don't show ballots in the opening section (see: 1960 Democratic National Convention) Knoper (talk) 18:35, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

lol nope, you lose — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:3D09:37F:E580:136:8313:2856:A94E (talk) 16:06, 8 March 2020 (UTC)


text:
Sensational Nightingales

The Sensational Nightingales are a traditional black gospel quartet that reached its peak of popularity in the 1950s, when it featured Julius Cheeks as its lead singer. The Nightingales, with several changes of membership, continue to tour and record.

John Fogerty's goal for the line, "rollin', rollin', rollin' on the river", in the song "Proud Mary" was to evoke male gospel harmonies, as exemplified by groups such as the Swan Silvertones, the Sensational Nightingales, and the Five Blind Boys of Mississippi.

Musical career
The group was founded in 1942 by Barney Parks, who had formerly sung with the Dixie Hummingbirds. Julius "June" Cheeks joined the group in 1946. Cheeks left and returned to the group several times during its heyday, then left in 1960 to form his own group, "the Sensational Knights", Charles Johnson becoming the new lead singer. In 1984, Charles Johnson was replaced by Calvert McNair.

The group presently consists of Joseph "JoJo" Wallace, Larry Moore, Horace "Sug" Thompson, and guitarist Darrell Luster.

Horace "Sug" Thompson is the grandfather of R&B singer PatriceLIVE.

Discography

 * Songs of Praise (Peacock 101, 1959)
 * Glory Glory (Peacock 112, 1963)
 * Travel On (Peacock 118, 1964)
 * Prayed Too Late (Peacock 131, 1965)
 * Heart and Soul (Peacock 154, 1968)
 * It's Gonna Rain Again (Peacock 175, 1972)
 * You and I and Everyone (Peacock 177, 1973)
 * You Know Not the Hour (Peacock 197, 1974)
 * My Sisters and Brothers (Peacock 59209, 1974)
 * The Almighty Hand (Peacock 59219, 1975)
 * See You in the Rapture (Peacock 59227, 1976)
 * Jesus Is Coming (Peacock 59232, 1978)
 * All About Jesus (Malaco 4368, 1980)
 * Saints Hold On (Malaco 4373, 1981)
 * Hymns (Malaco 4378, 1982)
 * He Is Real (Malaco 4380, 1982)
 * I Surrender All (Malaco 4391, 1984)
 * Church Let's Get Ready For The Resurrection! (Malaco 4401, 1985)
 * Freedom After a While (Malaco 4411, 1987)
 * Victory Is Mine (Malaco 4427, 1988)
 * The Truth Shall Make You Free (1989)
 * A Message from the Book (1991)
 * Stay On The Boat! (1992)
 * Don't Give Up! (1998)

Compilations
 * Wasted Years, 2001

title: Sensational Nightingales


text:
Archie Thompson

Archie Gerald Thompson (born 23 October 1978) is an Australian former professional footballer who played as a forward. He is also currently serving as a club ambassador for Melbourne Victory FC.

Born in New Zealand, Thompson played youth football at the New South Wales Institute of Sport before going on to play numerous seasons in the National Soccer League and A-League. After eleven seasons with Melbourne Victory, he moved on to play for Heidelberg United in 2016. Thompson also played overseas, for Belgian Pro League side Lierse and for Dutch Eredivisie side PSV Eindhoven.

Thompson has played over 50 times for the Australian national team, scoring 28 goals. He was in the squad for the 2006 FIFA World Cup, the 2001 and 2005 FIFA Confederations Cups, the 2007 AFC Asian Cup, the 2008 Summer Olympics and the successful 2004 OFC Nations Cup.

He holds the all time goal scoring record for a single international match, where he scored 13 goals in a 31–0 victory against American Samoa in 2001.

Early career
Archie Thompson began his career as a teenager with Bathurst '75 FC, breaking into the senior squad in 1995. At the close of the 1995 season, he secured a move to the National Soccer League, signing with the Gippsland Falcons midway through the 1996–97 season. His exceptional pace and skill on the ball were instantly recognisable in a mediocre team, and it wasn't long before he was snapped up by Carlton, becoming a key goalscorer in an attack-minded squad. The demise of Carlton saw a return to Sydney, where he spent the remainder of the 2000–01 season with Marconi after being signed by mastermind Head of Operations Tony "Bagonk" Trimboli, before ultimately signing with Belgium's Lierse SK. A fan favourite, Thompson scored 9 goals in his first season with the Belgian First Division club before injury curtailed his progress. In his fourth season in Belgium, he was the club's leading scorer, with 14 goals in 29 league appearances.

Melbourne Victory
Due to his strong form, he was lured back home to play for Melbourne Victory in 2005 (the inaugural A-League season), scoring the team's first ever regular season goal. With the A-League season finishing in March and a four-month gap between then and Australia's first World Cup group match, Thompson was approached in late 2005 join Dutch team PSV Eindhoven on a temporary loan. PSV was then coached by Guus Hiddink, who was also the Australian national team's head coach, and playing for the team would provide Thompson with the match fitness and exposure to help his chances of being selected in the World Cup team. After negotiations between the Victory and PSV stalled over the financial terms of the deal, Thompson was officially placed on six-month loan to PSV Eindhoven on 13 January 2006. He played what was thought at the time to be his final Melbourne Victory game against Queensland Roar, scoring the only goal as the team's acting captain. This goal took his tally to 8 for the season, which made him Melbourne Victory's inaugural Golden Boot winner. He also tied for the A-League's top goal scorer (the Reebok Golden Boot award) with Alex Brosque, Bobby Despotovski and Stewart Petrie. Thompson made just two appearances for PSV as a substitute. He was informed by the club that they would not be signing him to a further deal, and so he returned to Melbourne Victory for the A-League 2006-07 season.

Resuming with Melbourne Victory in domestic football, Thompson formed a deadly partnership in the second season of the A-League with strike partner Danny Allsopp, who both benefited from the attacking skills of Brazilian midfielder Fred.

Their quality forward play lead Melbourne to become both premiers and champions of the A-League in 2006–07.

Thompson starred in the 2007 A-League Grand Final on 18 February 2007, scoring 5 goals and helping Melbourne Victory to a 6–0 thrashing of rivals Adelaide United. In becoming the first player to score more than 3 goals in an A-League match, Thompson exceeded his own expectations, predicting before the game that he would get a hat trick. For his efforts, Thompson was awarded the Joe Marston Medal as the Man of the Match.

Thompson scored the winner against Robbie Fowler's North Queensland Fury in the third game of the 2009–10 A-League season.

During the 2009–2010 Hyundai A League grand final between the Melbourne Victory and Sydney FC, Archie was stretchered off after only 12 minutes due to tearing his knee ligaments. During the post game interview, Archie confirmed that it looks like he will require a full knee reconstruction, resulting in him being out of action for up to 12 months.

Thompson played his first game in the A-League 2010–11 season loss against Gold Coast United, after coming back from a major knee reconstruction.

He went on to win the 2014–15 A-League and 2015 FFA Cup with Victory.

On 30 April 2016, Melbourne Victory announced they hadn't renewed Thompson's contract with Thompson departing the club at the end of their 2016 ACL campaign. Thompson spent 11 seasons with the club, scoring 90 goals, 10 of them in finals matches (both numbers being records at the time of his departure from the club).

On 12 September 2016, Thompson was appointed as a club ambassador of Melbourne Victory.

National Premier Leagues Victoria
On 6 August 2016, Thompson signed a short-term, two-game deal with National Premier Leagues Victoria team Heidelberg United.

In something of a homecoming, Thompson signed up for a full season with Murray United FC, based in Wodonga, home of his parents, ahead of the 2017 National Premier Leagues Victoria 2 season. He made his debut for Murray United as a 57th-minute substitute against Melbourne City FC NPL.

Racing Murcia
On 20 August 2019, Thompson signed a contract for fifth division Spanish side Racing Murcia. The club has high ambitions as they aim for promotion to La Liga, the top division in Spain, within five years. Thompson made his debut on 2 September 2019 coming on as a substitute in the 64th minute against CD Abarán. In a video documenting the progress of the club uploaded to SBS The World Game, it was announced that Thompson had left the club and returned home to Australia.

International career

Thompson made his first international appearance for Australia on 28 February 2001 in a friendly match against Colombia. He then was included by coach Frank Farina in the squad for the 2002 FIFA World Cup qualification matches played in April 2001. On 9 April 2001, he came on as a substitute and scored his first international goal in Australia's first match against Tonga, which Australia easily won 22–0, breaking the world record for the largest win in an international match. Two days later, in the match against American Samoa, Thompson was named as starter with regular attackers either rested or omitted from the squad. Australia went on to break their own record by winning 31–0, with Thompson scoring 13 goals, breaking the world record for most goals scored in an international match. American Samoa, who had player eligibility issues, fielded a team with youth players and was not a match to Australia, even though Australia themselves were missing several star players.

A month later, Thompson was named in Australia's squad for the 2001 FIFA Confederations Cup. He made two substitute appearances in the tournament as Australia went on to achieve third place at the competition. In total, Thompson made seven international appearances in 2001, scoring an impressive 16 goals. However, after 2001, he was not called up by Farina for more than three years before earning a recall in 2004.

On 12 October 2004, he was recalled to the team and made a substitute appearance in the 2004 OFC Nations Cup final, which Australia won. Since then, Thompson was more regularly called up to the national team, although most of his appearances were as a substitute. He was also included in Australia's squad for the 2005 FIFA Confederations Cup, appearing in two matches as a substitute. In 2005, Thompson returned to Australia to play for Melbourne Victory in the inaugural A-League season. Despite not playing in Europe, he retained his place in the national team and became the only A-League based player in Australia's squad for the qualification matches against Uruguay for a berth in the 2006 FIFA World Cup. Australia eventually qualified for the 2006 World Cup. His good form for Melbourne earned Thompson a place in Australia's squad for the World Cup. He was one of three A-League based players in the squad, even though he spent the run-up to the tournament on loan at PSV Eindhoven. However, he did not receive any playing time in the tournament, as Australia was eliminated in the second round.

In 2007, Thompson was once again included in Australia's squad for a major tournament. This time, Thompson participated in the 2007 AFC Asian Cup, appearing as a substitute once, in a match against the eventual winners Iraq. In 2008, Thompson was included in Australia's under-23 squad for the 2008 Olympics as one of the three over-age players allowed in the team. National coach Pim Verbeek described Thompson's performance against Indonesia in February 2009 as "absolutely hopeless".

Thompson returned to the national team in 2012 and scored in a 3–0 win against Lebanon, his first international goal in 6 years. Three days later, he scored in a 2–1 loss to Jordan. His goal scoring form continued as he scored a last-gasp winner in a 2–1 victory over Iraq in a must-win 2014 World Cup qualifier. Thompson was selected in the squad to take part in East Asian Cup qualification in Hong Kong, and Thompson was crowned top-goalscorer of the 2013 East Asian Cup. On 5 November, he scored against North Korea in a 1–1 draw. Two days later, he scored one of the fastest hat-tricks in history after coming on as a substitute and scoring the three in between the 58th and 65th minutes in a 9–0 win over Guam. This meant that Thompson has scored 28 international goals, one behind the 29 of Damian Mori and 22 behind the Australian record of 50, held by Tim Cahill.

Goalscoring world record
Thompson's 13 goals broke the previous record of 7 goals, which was jointly held by another Australian, Gary Cole, who scored seven goals against Fiji in the 1982 World Cup qualification on 14 August 1981, and Iranian Karim Bagheri, who also scored seven goals against Maldives in the 1998 World Cup qualification on 2 June 1997. Some sources mentioned that the previous record was 10 goals, which was achieved by Denmark's Sophus "Krølben" Nielsen in a 17–1 win against France at the 1908 Olympics and Germany's Gottfried Fuchs in a 16–0 win against Russia at the 1912 Olympics. These matches, although fully recognised by FIFA, were played by amateur players. Thompson also equaled the world record for most goals scored in a recognised senior match, set in 1885 when John Petrie scored 13 goals in Arbroath's 36–0 win over Bon Accord in a Scottish Cup tournament.

Personal life
Thompson was born in Ōtorohanga to a New Zealand father of Māori descent and а Papua New Guinean mother. He has three brothers and two sisters. He has two children, Isabella and Axel, and bears one tattoo on each of his inner forearms of his children's names. Archie was the official ambassador for FIFA 08 in Australia and New Zealand.

Thompson is a fan of the Melbourne Football Club in the Australian Football League.

In October 2010, his book What Doesn't Kill You Makes You Stronger was released by Melbourne University Publishing.

International
Appearances and goals by national team and year International goals
 * Scores and results list Australia's goal tally first.

Honours
Melbourne Victory Australia Individual Records
 * A-League Championship: 2006–07, 2008–09, 2014–15
 * OFC Nations Cup: 2004
 * A-League Golden Boot: 2005–06
 * Joe Marston Medal: 2007
 * Victory Medal: 2007–08, 2009–10
 * A-League PFA Team of the Season: 2008–09, 2009–10, 2011–12, 2012–13
 * A-League PFA Team of the Decade: 2005–2015
 * Most goals in an international match: 13
 * Most goals in an A-League match: 5
 * Most Melbourne Victory appearances: 261
 * Most Melbourne Victory goals: 97

title: Archie Thompson


text:
Talk:Sun dog

Deleting reference to sunbows
Recently someone added a sentence about "sunbows", which allegedly involve sunlight passing through "vapor or mist". This is (a) questionable, as I've never even heard the term "sunbow", in contrast to "glory", "fogbow", and similar well-known optical phenomena, (b) irrelevant to the present article, as it does not refer to the same phenomenon as "sundog", which invariably involves ice crystals and has a different appearance, and (c) technically incorrect, because "vapor" is a gas, invisible and has no optical consequences whatsoever. I'm therefore deleting the sentence in question. Gpetty 15:37, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Little Extra Explanation
Snow is ice (if you compress snow without melting it will compact to ice as occurs often at the bottom part of a snow pack towards the end of winter), and super cooled water droplets do not necessarily turn to ice at 0 C. Since they are so small the probability of nucleation occuring in the droplet is also small so that they usually remain liquid well below freezing. Nearly pure bulk water freezes at around 0 C because a single nucleation event is highly probable somewhere in the water. Once there is an ice nuclei, it starts a domino effect where nearby water molecules accumulate around it and so on until the entire thing is frozen. You can prevent freezing in bulk water at 32 C by keeping the water in motion which often occurs in waterfalls and rapidly moving streams. For them to freeze the temperature usually has to be well below 15 F for quite a while.

I think the reason sundogs are more commonly seen during winter is because the sun sets earlier, it spends more time near the horizon (which is needed to see a sundog), skies tend to be less cloudy and hazy across large chunks of North America and Asia, and cirrus occur at lower levels, so they are more likely to be seen in front of a setting sun.

In light of this, I think that the page should be updated so that it does not claim that sundogs are winter phenomena.

Comment
"it is only produced in clouds cold enough to be ice rather than water, which only occurs far below 0°C."

I'm a little confused, there is no water below zero degrees. Water freezes (and turns to snow) at zero degrees, not far below. In fact most clouds that high are frozen, even in summer. Perhaps the author meant "cold enough to be ice rather than snow".

At any rate, Personal observations tells me that sun dogs only appear on very cold days.

 * (William M. Connolley 09:51, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)) Water clouds will remain super-cooled down to quite low temperatures. Absolutely pure water droplets won't spontaneously freeze until it gets to something like -40 oC (I forget the exact number). Air containsCCNs so I think water droplets in the atmos tend to freeze at about -20 oC ish.

Almost correct: It's not CCNs (cloud condensation nuclei) that cause supercooled droplets to freeze, but rather so-called ice nuclei (IN), which can trigger ice formation at various temperatures depending on particle composition, size, etc. Usually IN won't cause a cloud to fully glaciate; therefore pure ice (cirriform) clouds are usually found only at temperatures colder than -40. Sundogs may occur in any weather, any season, as long at the clouds contain ice particles of the right shape. Note also that sundog is spelled as one word by most meteorologists. - Gpetty 15:28, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

One word or two?
Is it sun dog or sundog? The title uses one form, the first sentence the other. Should be consistent. If both forms are correct, the first sentence should give both, with the first form matching the article's title: e.g. " A sun dog (or sundog) is a relatively common...." — Franey 12:46, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

 * m-w.com gives 'sun dog', AHD gives 'sundog'; 'sundog' outnumbers 'sun dog' on Google. There is probably no standard form, so both could be "correct" (really though, "correct" is POV applied to English spelling: there are no regulating bodies, only established usage).
 * Ideally the same form would be used throughout the article—and it is, apparently; unfortunately it is not the form used in the title. —Muke Tever talk (la.wiktionary) 01:29, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

I would consider the American Meteorological Society's Glossary of Meteorology to be the most authoritative reference; it uses "sundog", as do most meteorologists I know. If I knew how, I'd change the page title and have the alternate spelling redirect. --- Gpetty 19:19, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I think it is one word really. I'll add though that I'd only ever heard the term 'Parhelion' previously. Sundog is new to me. I'm in ireland so perhaps reasonably the term 'sun angel ' is known Dorkinglad (talk) 21:06, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Usage
Does anyone know how widely the word "sun dog" is used, less or more so than parhelion? I've not heard of either term, so I don't know if it's common in Britain, but it does sound like an Americanism. Any ideas on this, and also where & why the term originated? --User talk:El Pollo Diablo|Talk 01:38, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

 * I say "sun dog" and I'm British. Parhelion is more technical. William M. Connolley 21:10, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

The term (sundog) is used in Canada. Hu Gadarn

'Sundog' doesn't quite capture the beauty of what's happening, I wish there was a nicer name for it. So I use parhelion —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drumnbach (talk • contribs)

Aesthetic image added
I've added what I think is a beautiful picture of this phenomenon. I took it last year outside of New Ulm, MN. Axda0002 14:55, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * It's a wonderful photo. Thanks for uploading it. Seventypercent 04:19, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Name?
Anyone know why it's called a sun "dog" ? 68.39.174.238 04:55, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

 * The extra suns are "dogging" on the real one?
 * / Mats Halldin (talk) 11:09, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Another name; sun angel, and better picture http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-5227053/NASA-reveals-sun-angel-appeared-Sweden.htmlCarlWesolowski (talk) 04:15, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

 * Not so much an alternative name as an attention-grabbing headline. The article itself properly refers to the phenomenon as sundogs and parhelia, along with the sentences, "Some even compared the phenomenon to the appearance of an angel." and "Megan Tenaya Birchell added: 'These are the kind of things that helps you understand people believing in angels'." Unfortunately the photograph (actually a video still) is copyrighted by Håkan Hammar, so we can't use it. Thanks for trying though. It must have been a slow news day too as this video was originally aired over a month ago. Oh how I love the Daily Fail. nagualdesign 04:29, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Cleanup 2006-01-27
I liked this article but felt it needed a better disposition, so I rearranged things quite a bit. Let me know what you think and, if I messed anything up, don't hesitate to revert it.

/ Mats Halldin (talk) 11:01, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Quad Solar Dogs

 * http://englishrussia.com/?p=712

--70.126.236.103 10:31, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

 * Cool! Thank you for the link, I've added it to the article.
 * / Mats Halldin (talk) 16:18, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Edward IV
Didn't Edward IV actually see a Parhelion at Mortimer's Cross? I believe there are actually documented sources. The War of the Roses by Alison Weir mentions it, but I don't know it's source.67.85.254.111 23:06, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

i.e. / e.g.
This article repeatedly uses 'e.g.' when 'i.e.' would be more correct (in that they are clarifications rather than examples). Does anyone object to changing this? 212.84.102.228 18:01, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I have a question
How often do sun dogs occur? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.245.122.120 (talk) 02:00, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I do not believe they happen very often, but they do occur more commonly than moondogs. Saturday, January 30th 2009. 8:32 AM EST —Preceding unsigned comment added by 49ersfanforlife (talk • contribs) 13:31, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

 * If you look for them regularly at the right times it may surprise you how often they do occur. Look for small bright patches of light or colored rainbow-like patches the same distance from the horizon as the sun. Best chances when the sun is low in the sky and with some high clouds. Its not necessarily a winter phenomenon, but there are several factors that contribute to them being more likely observed in the winter months. I have seen two in the last couple months and maybe a dozen or so in my lifetime and thats without actually deliberately looking for them on a regular basis.  However, I've never seen them extremely pronounced as in the couple of very bright ones imaged in this article.  I'm assuming these are a more rare event. Racerx11 (talk) 03:01, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Clean up 18 July 09
Tidied the technical section, removing several erroneous statements. Clarified their appearance, where they can be seen and how often. --Halos25 (talk) 16:11, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Nuremberg section
I think we should delete this section. Perhaps the woodcut itself has cultural significance, but it belongs elsewhere. The first source cited in this section comes from a site about paranormal activity (at the bottom it says "Return to UFO Home" with an alien picture above it), and the second is in German. I can`t verify that this artwork really is a depiction of sundogs and halos, and I`m convinced that this is likely speculation. SweetNightmares (talk) 17:15, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

 * I support this view, it clearly doesn't relate to the phenomenon covered by the article. I will move it to the UFO article. --79.168.10.241 (talk) 20:16, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The UFO page is protected, so I restored the section even if it doesn't fit I share your view that it has significance enough not to be simply removed. --79.168.10.241 (talk) 20:20, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

 * This section is appears to be original research, and in violation of Wikipedia's NOR policy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NOR). As already noted, it seems both questionable and otherwise unrelated to the articles subject, so I am commenting it out.  RBarryYoung (talk) 17:03, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

 * Moved below. -- Beland (talk) 03:17, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Nuremberg, Germany in 1561
Sun dogs might explain a remarkable phenomenon observed in Germany: on April 4, 1561, the skies over Nuremberg, Germany were filled with a multitude of celestial objects that were observed by many people in the city. The phenomenon was described in a News notice (an early form of newspaper) published in Nuremberg on April 14, 1561, along with a woodcut by Hans Glaser, depicted to the right.

Shackleton section
I went ahead and removed the Shackleton section. The passage itself was not notable and as far as I can tell was just a routine description of the phenomenon. After looking at the article's history I see that this paragraph may have been useful at some point as part of a larger section of "quotations," but at this point it no longer serves the article. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 02:51, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Second image
The second image has no sundog in it, just a lens flare. It should be removed. 99.172.153.118 (talk) 21:06, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It does look a little bit like a lens flare but there are subtle differences. Each 'spot' within a lens flare is bokeh-like: a projection of the camera's aperture, with curved facets. The sun dog in the image has a smeared appearance above and below which follow a curve centered around the Sun. My guess would be that the photo was taken with a wide-angle lens, and the subsequent cropping has altered the relative positions of the Sun and sun dog and made them appear more flare-like. Regards, nagualdesign (talk) 23:38, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, even if there is a sundog, it isn't clear at all and is a pretty poor image of it. Not really helping people to understand what a sundog is. 99.172.153.118 (talk) 16:07, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It is a picture of a sun dog. That 'flare' to the left of the Sun is the sun dog. How could it be clearer? Perhaps you could find a better picture. ;-) The article explains what a sun dog is and the images show examples. Deleting or removing an image because you don't like or understand it will not improve Wikipedia. nagualdesign (talk) 21:20, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to remove an image because I don't like it or understand it. I just do not think it is necessary or a very good picture because an average person cannot distinguish it from the lens flare next to it. I have a great understanding of halos, and have many other pictures of ordinary sundogs that are much better than this one. I'm just worried it could confuse someone. 99.172.153.118 (talk) 02:13, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I you have another, possibly better image then I'd suggest that you upload it. You are right that sometimes less is more, but we should always try to add value to an article. If other contributors believe that 2 images are better than one then it's good practise to offer an alternative image, rather than removing one. If your image(s) showed a pair of sun dogs, as is the norm, that might be an improvement. nagualdesign (talk) 04:23, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * How exactly do you upload an image on wikipedia? I do have plenty of images that are better, I think a image of an average sundog would be good, the others show exceptional cases. 99.172.153.118 (talk) 21:21, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Assuming that you've already tried the link I provided and perhaps didn't get the same page that I get, maybe you have to be a registered user and sign-in before you can upload? Just a guess. You could try looking for more info at Upload and Picture tutorial. Also, when I'm signed in there's a link near the bottom of each image page that says Upload a new version of this file, but I only use that if I have a better copy of the same picture. I think new images should be uploaded separately. Hope that helps. nagualdesign (talk) 22:15, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Read Uploading images too. Regards, nagualdesign (talk) 22:48, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Today in Tucson
Every articles on sun dogs talks about ice. What about today in Tucson, a beautiful halo around the sun, 80 degrees? Could there really be ice up there, or maybe this isn't a sun dog. April 10, 2012. JDRIS — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdris (talk • contribs) 17:32, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Cirrus clouds (thin, wispy strands) vary in temperature from -20 °C (-4 °F) to -30 °C (-22 °F) and form at 4,000 m (13,000 ft) to 12,000 m (39,000 ft) above sea level. Even above Arizona the air gets pretty cold that high up - higher than the top of Mt. Everest! (diagram) Besides, if you can see Sundogs close to the horizon from Tucson they're much further away than you might think. nagualdesign (talk) 19:53, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Sun dog vs fog/cloud bow
What's the precise difference between these? And glories too?  Tu rk ey ph an t 20:48, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * You could have a look around http://www.atoptics.co.uk for details. In short: sun dogs (and other ice halos) are caused by refraction in ice crystals. Fog/cloud bows and glories are all formed by liquid water droplets, of varying sizes. Large water drops form rainbows (opposite the Sun), while smaller ones tend to form fog bows, as diffractive effects starts to matter/dominate in smaller droplets. Glories and fog bows can occur together, with the glory typically being small, and the fog bow being roughly the same size as a rainbow. Aeluwas (talk) 21:59, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Proposal to change the title into plural "Sun dogs"
Even though it appears very common among laypeople to refer to any ice halo phenomenon (especially the 22° halo) as "sun dog", the term only refers to either of the two spots to the left and right of the sun. Each of them is a separate sun dog; see http://www.atoptics.co.uk/halo/parhelia.htm. For this reason I would propose to change the title of the page into the plural Sun Dogs (or Sundogs), and/or perhaps add a small section explaining the common misconception. Drabkikker (talk) 06:58, 19 December 2014 (UTC) Looks good. I moved the article. If anyone objects we can revert and discuss further. I also standardized the spelling as "sun dogs" (two words rather than one) across the whole article to be consistent with the spelling in the title. Interestingly, the OED spells it "sun-dog" but the Canadian OED uses "sun dog." Meters (talk) 18:11, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Support. Good point, it would stop a lot of confusion. And for what it's worth, Google Ngram Viewer shows that the plural forms are much more prevalent.  nagual  design   17:55, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Splendid. There then; I took the liberty of adding section 2 'Terminology'. I think the most appropriate place is before 'Etymology', but feel free to edit, move or elaborate on the section. Oh, and merry Christmas to y'all! Drabkikker (talk) 10:51, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

 * Cheers, thanks a bunch! Drabkikker (talk) 21:10, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

 * The Oxford American Dictionary says "sun dog (also sundog)". Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 08:29, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Article title
Should the title be singular or plural? SINGULAR says that the title should be singular, unless it is always plural. Yesterday I saw and photographed a single sundog. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 21:17, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

 * Oppose. (See above) Fair point, but there are exceptions, including "articles on groups of distinct entities that are nevertheless often considered together. [..] In rare circumstances, we ignore the rules here in order to make the encyclopedia better." (from Naming conventions (plurals)) Sun dogs generally form in pairs, whereas things that are often mistaken for sun dogs don't come in pairs.  nagual  design   21:36, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

 * I don't think that applies, see "... preceded almost invariably by the word 'the')..." that you omitted. There aren't necessarily two sundogs visible.  And it is different from scissors, glasses, pants, etc.  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 08:36, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

 * I'm not saying that the title should be changed - I'm just asking. Where above is the issue addressed (I see only one word or two).  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 22:13, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

 * Talk:Sun dogs (last edited about 7 minutes before you started this topic.)   nagual  design   22:23, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The proposal to change the name was up for almost one week. Three people supported it and no-one opposed it, so I made a bold edit and changed it. I also clearly said that we could undo it and continue the discussion if someone objected. There's no need for the hyperbole that there was only one word or two on the subject. Meters (talk) 20:18, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

 * I don't want to undo it. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 20:22, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * OK. I'm perfectly happy to discuss the name change, and I apologize if I moved it prematurely. Meters (talk) 20:33, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * In Bubba's defense, there was no hyperbole. I believe he was referring to the section above titled One word or two?, which dealt with a different issue. So, do you have any reason you'd like to change the title back? Perhaps you could state your reasons rather than asking if other people think the title should be changed, then we'd have something to discuss. Regards,  nagual  design   22:32, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I misunderstood. If that was in relation to my decision to standardize the article to two words rather than one word, I simply went with the usage of the article title since the article text was more or less evenly split. Meters (talk) 22:50, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Sun dogs seems fine to me.  nagual  design   23:39, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It should be Sun Dog. A good test would be how you apply the indefinite article. You would say "this is a shoe", even though shoes almost invariably come in pairs. The exception is for where you wouldn't say for example "this is a Maxwell equation", you would say "this is one of Maxwell's equations". But you wouldn't say "that is one of a pair of Sun Dogs" or "that is one of the Sun Dogs", you would say "That is a Sun Dog".
 * There is also the nice irony that WP:PLURAL says "our article on everyone's favorite canine is located at dog, not dogs". As with dogs, so with sun dogs.Wellset (talk) 12:28, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Very well put. You've convinced me that I should not have moved it. I am in favour of moving it back to the original, singular title. Meters (talk) 19:37, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I photographed a single sun dog on Dec 25 (left of the Sun). Today my daughter spotted a single one to the right of the Sun and I saw it too. The one on Dec 25 - a cold front was coming through and there were clouds to the left of the Sun (where the sun dog was) but not to the right. That might have something to do with seeing a single one. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 08:28, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

 * An argument in favour of using the plural is the common error (as a quick web search will show) of calling the 22° halo a "sun dog". Of course sun dogs can appear on their own if the ice crystals are distributed unequally across the sky, but their distinguishing feature is that they tend to come in pairs. Then again, so do nostrils, so I can see your point. Drabkikker (talk) 15:42, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Etymology.
I can recall, a long long time ago (as in like 50 years ago!), reading that it was called a "Sun Dog" because it follows close to the Sun like a deog does to its owner. It was so long ago that I cannot recall the source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.129.97.105 (talk) 12:14, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Ashura
There's this belief that in the day of Ashura when Husayn ibn ali was killed there were three Suns in the sky. If true, it could be a Sun dog. Aminabzz (talk) 19:26, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Sun dog