text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Green Gorilla

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was delete. — Xezbeth 12:20, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

Green Gorilla
This organisation might be notable and stuff, but the article as written is a blatant advertisement.

NOTE: this discussion page refers to this wiki entry as if they were wanting it to evolve into an article sort of like Greenpeace. Perhaps they weren't as ad-minded as it appears? Looks like they might have had good intentions. Master Thief Garrett 23:58, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete unless it can be rewritten.   — J I P | Talk 17:28, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Advertisement. I get fairly few relevant Google hits. --InShaneee 18:47, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Possibly well-intentioned wikispam, speedied once already but should go through VfD this time. See also Green Alliance. Andrewa 22:49, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, promo. Megan1967 07:08, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, promo, POV ("we", "our"). Probably could be interesting content, but right now... just advertising with the sort of wording you'd expect on the company's "about us" page. Strange. Master Thief Garrett 23:55, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete appears to just be a website of unknown origin (no contact details). No evidence of any significant organisation behind it. Andypasto 09:13, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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


text:
Steven Mierdman

Steven Mierdman (c.1510–1559) was among the most important Dutch printers of Reformation books.

Mierdman, also known as Stephen Mierdman, Steven Mierdmans, Stephen Myerdmann, and Steven Mierman, was born in Hooge Mierde. He first printed in Antwerp from 1542 to about 1546, becoming a freeman of the city in November 1543. Some time after 1546, to escape proceedings for having printed heretical books, he went to England. In July 1550, Mierdman, who had already taken out letters of denization, was granted a royal licence for five years "to print various books hitherto unprinted" and to "employ printers, English and foreign." While printing in London from 1549 to 1553, he printed a number of books in Latin, English, French, Italian and Dutch, the majority being Protestant tracts, many of them by members of the Dutch Reformed Church.

On the accession of Queen Mary, Mierdman had to uproot himself once again. He settled in Emden, printing there from 1554 to 1558. In Emden he met Willem Gailliart, who would take over his printing shop after Mierdman's death, at Emden in 1559.

The number of books which bear Mierdman's imprint on the title page or colophon are but a small part of his extremely large output; he worked for a number of stationers and printed many books bearing fictitious imprints, such as "Niclaes van Oldenborch."

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

title: Steven Mierdman


text:
Talk:Urban heavy rail

I'm not at all sure about the appropriateness of using 'heavy rail' for metros. It seems to be a very American usage - in Britain it's generally used to refer to National Rail, as opposed to local rail transit, and the usage here isn't common in Canada either. It gets even more difficult when you try to define what makes a system 'light' or 'heavy'.

'Metro' seems the best term to me (and no, as a Torontonian I'm not trying to enforce regional usage here :) ), since it describes the service provided rather than the vehicles used or location of the tracks, and is used in many countries (including Canada and the U.S. - see Montréal Métro and Washington Metro), and accepted as a generic term even by some systems that don't use it (Transport for London refers to the London Underground internally as a metro).

When you try to divide things out by the 'light'/'heavy' nomenclature, it starts to become difficult; for example, the Docklands Light Railway even has the word 'light' in its name, and yet it provides a full metro service and provides heavier service than the Tyne and Wear Metro. In Toronto, some people seem to feel it necessary to refer to the Scarborough line as 'light rail', even though from a user's point of view the only difference between it and the other three lines is that it spends more time above-ground (and the naming of the other lines as 'subway' is similarly problematic, given how much of their overall tracks are above-ground). 'Metro' has none of these difficulties. David Arthur 17:32, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

 * There are two issues here - the division and the naming of this article.

 * First, the division. I feel there's a pretty clear line between light and heavy rail, though some systems cross over. And yes, the Docklands Light Railway seems to be pure heavy rail. The history of both types is usually very different, and because of the usual difference in platform height, changing from one to the other is relatively rare.

 * Now the name. Metro seems somewhat inexact to me, and can include elements of both systems. It seems that a non-generic term should be used to make it clear that this article is about a certain type of system, and avoid cunfusion when the local system called Metro includes elements of light rail. I welcome any other suggestions for names.

 * Finally, there's some more discussion on Talk:Streetcar - you may want to weigh in there. --SPUI (talk) 18:00, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Oh, as for regional rail being called heavy rail, that's why I named this urban heavy rail, and put a disambig at heavy rail. --SPUI (talk) 18:10, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * I can't really agree about there being a clear dividing line, as everyone seems to use their own definitions of what makes a system 'light' or 'heavy'. Some people seem quite adamant that the DLR be considered light rail because of the size and capabilities of the vehicles used, and make the same arguments about the Scarborough RT and the Vancouver SkyTrain.

 * As for the platform-height distinction, low-floor trams are relatively new, and it's hard to clearly link it to the 'lightness' of a system. The Manchester Metrolink uses high-floor trams, but no one would argue that it's therefore a metro system, heavy rail, or whatever; conversely, some main-line trains in France and Germany have low floors, but that doesn't make them light rail.

 * Main-line trains should be treated differently, being regional rail. For platform heights, I don't see low-floorness having anything to do with it - low-floor vehicles are usually if not always trams/streetcars/light rail, which makes sense because the platforms are low. Similarly older trams use low platforms but high floors.

 * Manchester uses high floors with level (ie. high) boarding platforms just like a modern metro, but I would still classify their vehicles as trams (as do the people who live there). Some mainline railway stations here in Canada serve high-floor trains, but have no platforms to speak of. I don't think platform height can be used as an indicator, at least not without being very geographically-specific. David Arthur 22:46, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

 * Some people use the phrase 'light rail' to make trams and streetcars sound like something new; others have their own definitions based on the capacity, the size of the vehicles, or any number of other things. A few years ago the TTC was working on a project to build a separate right-of-way for streetcars down Spadina Avenue; they had to re-name it as a 'light rail' system to make it sound modern enough for politicians to get behind, and then change it back to a 'streetcar' to get the residents of the area to accept it.

 * The differentiation I would personally make is that a metro runs entirely in its own right-of-way (in most cases largely elevated or underground), with maybe the occasional level crossing on the low end as in Tyne & Wear, while streetcars and trams usually spend at least some of their route on city streets, even if it's only in pedestrianised areas or in dedicated lanes. The vast majority of the systems that call themselves 'light rail' fit into one of these categories.

 * That seems to be another decent dividing line. It shouldn't be the only one though, as the D branch of Boston's Green Line is completely grade separated, but uses the same streetcars that run on streets on the other branches. Basically, the way I see it, if it fits all the criteria of one, it's that, but if it fits some of one and some of the other it's a tossup. I'd lump interurbans like the Norristown High Speed Line into light rail, but parts of the NYC Subway are very similar. There it's the platform heights that would differentiate them.

 * Wait a sec, the Norristown line has high platforms. It seems almost identical to parts of the New York City Subway, particularly the Franklin Shuttle. I guess that should be considered heavy or at the most a hybrid. --SPUI (talk) 20:06, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * As far as the Boston line goes, I admit I'm not familiar with the layout of that system, but if it's a branch of a streetcar line which includes shared sections, I would classify the whole line that way. David Arthur 22:46, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

 * My feeling is that it's better to categorise services based on how they're used from a passenger's point of view; if you're actually using a system, you care more about its frequency and speed than about how tight a corner it can turn and how high its platforms are. 'Heavy rail' seems inappropriate to me because it's used more as a specialist term than one in common parlance, and outside the U.S. it doesn't usually refer to the subject matter of this article. If I were to refer to 'London heavy rail', that would refer to the suburban trains run by Thameslink, South West Trains, South East Trains, and the like, not the London Underground. David Arthur 19:31, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

 * You see to agree for the most part with the division between heavy and light, just not with the terms I chose. Do you have any alternatives to suggest? --SPUI (talk) 20:01, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * 'Metro' seems the best term for trains running in a segregated route to me, since it avoids the confusion over above-ground 'subways', and is used quite widely; certainly it's less common in many parts of North America, but it's usually fairly well-understood even by people who don't use it themselves. It's what I use personally as a generic term for lines on a segregated route with frequent service; past about a train every ten minutes, they start to be more like simply local railways.

 * As for the shared-route service, I generally use 'tram' and 'tramway' (for the vehicle and the system, respectively) when I'm not talking about Toronto, but both 'streetcar' and 'tram', used as appropriate to the system in question, seem appropriate to me. With systems like Edmonton's or the DLR that actually use 'light rail' as part of their names, I certainly have no objection to it, but it's too nebulous a term to bother trying to agree on a definition of it when there are so many different criteria (on another article someone questioned my description of the DLR as providing relatively 'heavy' service, saying that the tight corners in its trackage made it 'light'). David Arthur 22:46, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

There's been a lot of discussion on Talk:Streetcar about the streetcar/tram/light rail side; you might want to discuss there. As for this article, rapid transit has been suggested; do you have any comments on that? --SPUI (talk) 22:51, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * 'Rapid transit' seems reasonable to me (it matches the TTC's official internal usage perfectly :) ); it's not used in general speech for too many systems, but with redirects from metro/subway and an explanation of the term in the text of the article it should do nicely enough. David Arthur 00:56, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

title: Talk:Urban heavy rail


text: User talk:71.112.213.218

title: User talk:71.112.213.218


text: User talk:68.49.122.59

title: User talk:68.49.122.59


text:
Surya Das

Surya Das (born Jeffrey Miller in 1950) is an American lama in the Tibetan Buddhist tradition. He is a poet, chantmaster, spiritual activist, author of many popular works on Buddhism, meditation teacher and spokesperson for Buddhism in the West. He has long been involved in charitable relief projects in the developing world and in interfaith dialogue.

Surya Das is a Dharma heir of Nyoshul Khenpo Rinpoche, a Nyingma master of the non-sectarian Rime movement, with whom he founded the Dzogchen Foundation and Center in 1991. He received Nyoshul Khenpo's authorization to teach in 1993.

His name, which means "Servant of the Sun" in a combination of Sanskrit (sūrya) and Hindi (das, from the Sanskrit dāsa), was given to him in 1972 by the Hindu guru Neem Karoli Baba. Surya Das is based in Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Early life and education
Surya Das was born Jeffrey Miller and raised in Valley Stream, Long Island, New York. He attended the State University of New York at Buffalo, graduating with honors in 1971, with a degree in creative education.

Early studies
After his best friend's girlfriend, Allison Krause, was killed during the Kent State shootings, Surya Das began pursuing spirituality. From 1971 to 1976 he traveled in India. There he studied Hinduism with Neem Karoli Baba as well as Vipassana with S. N. Goenka and Anagarika Munindra, of the Theravadin tradition. Neem Karoli Baba gave him the name Surya Das in 1972.

During his travels in India and Nepal, Surya Das studied with Tibetan Buddhist Lamas Thubten Yeshe, Kalu Rinpoche, The 16th Gyalwa Karmapa, Tulku Urgyen, Thrangu Rinpoche, Dezhung Rinpoche, Dilgo Khyentse, and Kangyur Rinpoche. In 1973 and 1974, he lived in Kyoto, Japan, where he taught English and studied Zen Buddhism with Uchiyama Roshi.

Monastery and retreat
In 1977, Surya Das helped establish Gyalwa Karmapa's Karma Triyana Dharmachakra monastery on a mountaintop overlooking Woodstock, New York. He resided at the monastery from 1977 to 1980. He attended the first Nyingmapa retreat center in Dordogne, France in 1980. At the center he completed two Dzogchen three-and-a-half-year retreats under the guidance of Dudjom Rinpoche and Dilgo Khyentse Rinpoche.

Founding of the Dzogchen Foundation

In 1991 Surya Das returned from his two decades at Tibetan monasteries and retreats, and with Nyoshul Khenpo established the Dzogchen Foundation and Center to help further the spread of Tibetan Buddhism in the West. He received Nyoshul Khenpo's authorization to teach in 1993. The Foundation has brought many Tibetan lamas to teach and reside in the United States and continues to do so.

Appearances
Surya Das travels, teaches, and leads meditation retreats throughout the world. He is often called upon as a Buddhist spokesman by the media and has appeared on TV and radio. One episode of the sitcom Dharma and Greg, "Leonard's Return", was loosely based on his life and return to America. He has appeared as a special guest on the Comedy Central television show The Colbert Report.

Sexual misconduct allegations
In 2020, Surya Das told a reporter that he had slept with "probably one or two" of his students. Later, in a statement released by a spokesperson, he said that he had had intimate relationships with "a few" of his former students before 2010. New ethical guidelines were established as a result.

These admissions came after five women, working through a lawyer, brought allegations of sexual misconduct by Surya Das to Dzogchen Foundation's board of directors in 2019. Three of them said Surya Das suggested that meditating while naked in his lap (based on the yab-yum image) would help their spiritual practice. Two others recounted sexual encounters with Surya Das, including one who said that he told her sleeping with him would complete her Buddhist training.

Officials, teachers, and board members of the Dzogchen Center resigned following the allegations. Surya Das has disputed some details of these allegations.

title: Surya Das


text:
Talk:Romulus and Remus (Star Trek)

Untitled
This article should really be merged with Romulus (Star Trek), Remus (Star Trek), and this Romulan Home Worlds.

--IRelayer 17:34, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Listing on Wikipedia:Duplicate articles. --Christopherlin 21:02, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Done AlistairMcMillan 18:46, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Edited out the 'citation needed' on the following fact "(The form of tidal locking cannot actually occur in the twin-planet arrangement in which Romulus and Remus are described.)" No citation is needed, this is common scientific sense.

-- One episode (Was it Balance of Terror?), if I recall right, referred to the neutral zone as between the stars Romulus and Remus

No, it said the Neutral ZOne seperates the planets ROmulas and Remus from the rest of the galaxy, which seems to imply the empire is quite small. Shia1 19:09, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Star Trek Nemesis Reman Surface.JPG
Image:Star Trek Nemesis Reman Surface.JPG 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) 09:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Star Trek Nemesis Reman Surface.JPG
Image:Star Trek Nemesis Reman Surface.JPG 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 ensure 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) 05:27, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

title: Talk:Romulus and Remus (Star Trek)


text:
Talk:Asteroid mining

Untitled
jil

Depletion of Metals
Deleted almost all of the depletion section, and linked to wikipedia's resource depletion section instead. That page has a lot more recently sourced and more encyclopedic data Mmcdougall (talk) 01:33, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

The article says "Based on known terrestrial reserves and growing consumption in developing countries along with excessive exploitation by developed countries, there is speculation that key elements needed for modern industry, including antimony, zinc, tin, silver, lead, indium, gold, and copper, could be exhausted on Earth within 50–60 years." However, there is no mention of the fact that metals can be recycled. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.111.174.67 (talk) 23:57, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

 * However, depletion occurs but the price of the metal increases,allowing lower grade material to be mining. So saying a metal will be exhausted is not accurate.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.111.21.214 (talk) 06:25, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
 * "metals can be recycled" That's the usual ill-informed eco-zealot nonsense. See Second Law of Thermodynamics, & then explain what you intend to do when the last of the metals is gone.  TREKphiler  any time you're ready, Uhura  10:58, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Recycling is ultimately just a matter of how much energy you're willing to put into the process. Right now, with the current price of materials and the current price of energy, it doesn't make sense to recycle most things (with aluminum being the main exception). As material prices rise, and as energy prices fall in the future - or at least availability of energy rises (solar, fusion) - it will start to make sense to recycle more things. As rarity increases, it eventually makes sense to recycle almost everything, even with the huge amounts of energy you have to expend to do so. — Gopher65talk 13:53, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Density and Composition
The only major problem I can see with placing rockets on asteroids to slow the revolution, even ones of high density, is that the gravity is still too tenuous to act on the body as a whole. In fact, the weak gravity would require that we come up with different method of mining all together, because shaft mining would weaken the integrity of the asteroid and as stated strip mining would create a ring or cloud of debris around the asteroid. -nick
 * This is largely a question of composition. In the case of bodies made of solid material, rather than gravitationally bound conglomerations of loose material, this is not an issue. Higher density bodies are much more likely to be solid, and given that higher density objects are more likely candidates for mining, this is unlikely to pose the problem you suggest. There is, of course, a lot of variety between individual asteroids, and certainly some would exhibit the problems you talk about, but asteroid selection is just that much more important.Azriphael 19:29, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Higher density doesn't necessarily imply cohesion. A metallic rubble pile will have a much higher density than a solid silicate rock.  More importantly, our current understanding of asteroids is that most of them are rubble piles (that is, they are held together largely by gravity rather than their own cohesive strength).  This means that shaft mining is not necessarily a bad idea, because the asteroid is weak anyway.  With regards to slowing the rotation with rockets: all that is required is that the rockets be anchored well enough to the surface that they don't pull themselves loose.  That can be achieved by driving stakes into the surface. There are a few asteroids known that rotate so fast that they must be solid, but most of these are very small (<100 m) and they are definitely in the minority. Michaelbusch 21:34, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree that solidity and density are only correlated, not linked. However, even if the vast majority of asteroids were rubble piles, there are an awful lot of 'em in the belt. If the techinique you are using requires a solid asteroid to be effective, you can find one. It is also my understanding (though I lack an authoritative source to link you to) that solid iron asteroids are actually more likely than silicate ones. Assuming roughly equivalent spectroscopy, density is a good indicator of solidity. Azriphael 18:07, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I have learned from experience that spectroscopy is not a reliable indicator of composition (see M-type asteroid). More importantly, we have zero information on the densities of most objects (although they generally have to be more than 1 g/cm^3 to hold together, and aren't solid lead).  Iron asteroids are much rarer than silicate asteroids, by about a factor of a hundred.  This is based on radar observations, which give bulk densities of the near-surface material.  Among asteroids known to be metallic (from radar observations), four of six have bulk densities such that they have to have high porosity.  The remaining two don't have good bulk density constraints as yet (just >3.5 g/cm^3).  Our information on this will get better: Mike Shepard of Bloomsburg University will be releasing some of his results next week.  But there is still a shortage of solid objects.  Modeling of the asteroid belt indicates that only very small (less than order 100 m) objects have high probability of remaining monolithic chunks.  This is supported by the morphologies of objects in the km size range.  Of course, once an object is big enough, it doesn't matter if it is a rubble-pile or not.  The Earth isn't held together by cohesion and neither is Ceres or 216 Kleopatra. Michaelbusch 18:21, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Is the basis of the modeling argument that larger monolithic bodies would not have formed, or that they would have been pulverized by now? Or is there some other perfectly reasonable argument here that isn't immediately apparent to me? Azriphael 20:23, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Both. Objects of km size fragment during accretion (there have been many good papers on this.  The work of Erik Asphaug of UC Santa Cruz comes to mind first), so the only way to produce solid shards is by annealing in the interiors of large objects (in the extreme case, melting to get out nickel-iron).  Then, over the age of the solar system, objects up to tens of km in size are collisionally disrupted, which is what maintains the number of small objects.  During collisional disruption, shards tend to be cohesive only on sub-km size scales (the is based both on the observed morphologies of small objects and the works of Holsapple, Morbidelli, and Canup, among others). Michaelbusch 21:25, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Very well, then. I haven't reviewed the literature you suggest, but based on your explanation, that seems sensible. Azriphael 22:04, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Given the above, is the debris resulting from surface (strip) mining really an issue? To the extent that the process kicked up a lot of small particulate debris, I could see it posing a threat to the mining vehicle as it attempted to leave the asteroid to return its cargo to Earth. However, in the case of waste material generated by the extraction process, even if it can't be safely placed back into the asteroid (unlikely, perhaps), simply ejecting it away from the craft's intended departure vector should render it harmless. Then again, I suppose that in large part the danger of disrupted clouds of debris is a function of their individual particles' mass and relative velocity vs. the fragility of the vehicle. Can someone cite a source for the specific techniques proposed and their respective advantages and drawbacks? Azriphael 22:04, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Debris is a problem, because you don't want to be throwing lots of dust into space around the object. Unless you throw it away very quickly, it will stay near the asteroid for a long time.  There aren't many very good references on the advantages and disadvantages of various techniques.  Probably the best is Lewis & Lewis, 1987 "Space Resources".  It is unfortunately somewhat dated. Michaelbusch 22:10, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

 * Because the only asteroids worth mining for iron, nickel, ect. are S-type asteroid and X-type asteroid. those asteroids would (in theory) be dense enough for shaft mining. --Hellstorm88 01:56, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

This article needs an inclusion in the Economics header of the qualified opinion by experts such as Rusty Schweickart and Carl Sagan on issues with space law and ethics concerning technology of moving large bodies. These objections are well publicized and have been located in the Asteroid Impact Avoidance wiki article under "Deflection technology concerns", none of which is posted by anyone I am aware of.

Twice an otherwise qualified contributor has removed these items and links. The first his objection has been there an issue of slanted opinion. No, it is not my objection, but rather these famous individuals'. As James Randi said of Sagan qualifiers on many a subject, "We may not agree, but we ignore Carl's points at our peril" -- and is therefore food for thought. Any serious effort at asteroid mining is going to have to deal with the issue, so it is ridiculous to remove it for this reason.

Second, the contributor has removed it now for listed reason in lack of reference. Do a word search on the listed wiki link article or go to the heading as the posted link directs "harm the Earth" if need be. The posted reference there to Sagan's book "Pale Blue Dot" is clear enough. If there is any issue with the inference being misapplied to Asteriod impact avoidance, we can handle that readily enough.

Sagan's issue is the development of asteroid avoidance technology to be misapplied in terrorism to asteroid impact technology. The very nature of asteroid mining is to have directed LEO or impact technology, which is considerably closer. Albeit with normally much less mass, by the very nature of economies of scale has larger the better intersection of LEO or Earth harvest.

Certainly artwork showing a towed flying mountain to LEO by some proponents is outrageous risk to the point of being fantasy. The Tuskunga event was of similar size and not too much more dV than the potentially more deadly pin point insertions being planned for asteroid mining.

I therefore contend that Sagan's objection in particular is important to be listed as an economic aspect of the Asteroid Mining wiki article and satisfactory posted in reputable internet sources, including wiki, and will persist in re-posting it until we have a neutral party arbitrate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mawrth (talk • contribs) 19:14, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

 * For second time: You are not citing any reference. Please note that Wikipedia itself is not a valid source (WP:CIRCULAR) nor is expecting the reader to figure out the missing valid sources. Also, focus on improving the encyclopedia itself, rather than demanding more from other Wikipedians. Your edit is reverted again. I realize these are common mistakes from newcommers unfamiliar with the required procedures, so please feel free to get familiar with Tutorial and the Five pillars. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 19:32, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Ok, consider it done. But you also deleted on the links section the part to Asteroid Impact Avoidance(wiki) which was not a reference link. Perhaps merely an oversight for the convenience of a hasty, painless 'undo all'. But something on your side to consider for the future should it have been unintentional, along with better care regarding tone slurs to new or preoccupied-to-deal-with-the-fine-print users in this unpaid effort. Mawrth (talk) 20:51, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Finished. I prefer you let me know through the talk page if this seems lacking, but will accept come what may. Mawrth (talk) 21:22, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Also for your and other's knowledge, the reference link was sort of posted in the other wiki. Circular links are not allowed, but wiki links are if properly referenced on the other end, which makes sense. So I seem to read, and the distinction is important. In this case a poorly referenced wiki link to a book rather than a url, and I apologize. Mawrth (talk) 21:37, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

 * Circular links are not allowed, but wiki links are if properly referenced on the other end, which makes sense.
 * Wikipedia itself is not an acceptable/valid reference, whether it is circular or not, which makes sense. Regarding the 'Asteroid impact avoidance' wikilink in the See also section, no, I did not noticed it and I apologize for that. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 01:37, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Proposed Merger with Space Mining
Looks like this was merger was actually performed some time ago. Yay. Mmcdougall (talk) 01:34, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Keep separate - I think that this has been discussed before, though I'm in a bit of a hurry right now and don't want to go digging through the history of the talk page. I don't think that this is a particularly good plan. You might take a look at Michaelbusch's comments above about the differences in processing ore. The evidence presented here seems to me to suggest that the processes of mining on an asteroid are radically different from those needed to mine a extra-Terran planet. Given this distinction, I think it would be more sensible to include a small note about the major differences in these processes in the space mining article and to leave this information in its own space, with similar articles for extra-Terran planetary mining and any other major category that makes sense. At present, the only real argument I can see to merge the two is that the space mining article is nearly empty, while this article is considerably more extensive. However, I view that as being an issue of a shortcoming of the space mining article, not a mis-categorization of this one. Azriphael 22:04, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed. — RJH (talk) 14:44, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Proposed History paragraph
I added the following paragraph yesterday. User Michaelbusch promptly deleted it.

History
The idea of moving mining to space dates back at least to Russian space visionary Konstantin Tsiolkovski (1903). Robert Goddard's pioneering rocketry experiments in the 1920's were paid for by the Guggenheim foundation, with money from mining. Goddard himself envisioned the migration of industry and people to space (1918). (Source: ref. 2)

From the Asteroid mining history page: 04:54, 5 December 2006 Michaelbusch (rv. additions. History is not a bad idea, but this paragraph is not well written and is inaccurate. Citations!)

Reply: All of these statements are drawn from Ref. 2, John S. Lewis, "Mining the Sky: Untold Riches from the Asteroids, Comets, and Planets". Do you want them individually footnoted? What did you think was inaccurate?

As for the writing quality, editing would seem better than deletion.

Comments from others? Pete Tillman 18:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * MB:The implication of the second sentence is that Guggenheim somehow thought that they would mine space, which I very much doubt. I would simply remove that sentence and edit the rest of the paragraph.

PT: My intent was just to show that a mining-based foundation was supporting space exploration in the 1920's. The Guggenheims were a remarkable family. For all either of us knows, someone at the family/foundation had read Tsiolkovski....

 * MB: I don't have Lewis' book in front of me, but I would prefer citations to the original statements by Tsiolkovski and Goddard if someone can find them (note also that asteroid mining as discussed here and the industry invisioned in the early 20th century are somewhat different). John is very good, but he is on occasion over-enthusiastic. Michaelbusch 18:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll try to remember to look at the book at the library -- though I can't think of any reason Lewis would fabricate this. In any case, secondary sources are fine for WP, so long as they're cited properly. Pete Tillman 18:40, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I wasn't suggesting that John fabricated, merely that he was making a sales pitch. Michaelbusch 18:52, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Translation
I am working on a rough translation of this article so that the one in French can be more than a few sentences long. I hope noone minds.--Freiberg, Let's talk!, contribs 19:45, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

In Science Fiction?
Asteroid Miners seem to be so common in SF that it amounts to a cliché. A history of "asteroid mining in SF" would make a nice addition to this article. -- 92.229.179.88 (talk) 00:10, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

 * I agree, "Asteroid Mining in popular culture"?Olyus (talk) 11:10, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

 * Please, please not another "pop culture section"! It'll only encourage inclusion of every mention of asteroids in every video game & bad movie ever made.  TREKphiler   any time you're ready, Uhura  11:30, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

 * There is already an article for this suggested topic: Asteroids in fiction.—RJH (talk) 15:54, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

 * That movie (Deep Impact (film)) was actually amazing, it had Morgan_Freemen as president. But i do agree with you, we don't need anymore science fiction to cliché up true science. stevenDP (talk) 12:29, 14 February 2012 (PST)

Lead is wrong
The cited references on the fact that all mined metals here on earth come from asteroides do not back up the claims. The sources only claim the highly siderophile elements and here only a few were tested. Iron and nickel are not tested and not mentioned. The iron silicates make up large proportion of basalt (olivine) so it is not in the core.--Stone (talk) 21:14, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Radioactive elements.
Would some of the elements be radioactive because they are not shielded by an atmosphere? Especially the elements on the surface to be strip mined.

Erosion.
If astroids are made up of loose rubble piles. With a lack of wind, water, and gravity to erode the small rubble to dust size pieces. That would mean all of the astroids material would be very sharp and highly erosive. I would assume this to be a major issue to overcome.

--84.213.187.140 (talk) 14:32, 3 January 2021 (UTC)Lots of sharp things in the industrial world already. I think we will be able to handle this one.

Mission costs
Added a concrete example; ~2.1 ounces, 1.6 billion dollars

doe anyone knows the estimated costs of a retrieval mission ? would be nice to put some exemples ?--Beaucouplusneutre (talk) 19:47, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

 * "It has been estimated that the mineral wealth resident in the belt of asteroids between the orbits of Mars and Jupiter would be equivalent to about 100 billion dollars for every person on Earth today." (http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/neo/resource.html) stevenDP (talk) 10:23, 9 February 2012 (PST)

There is an asteroid mining feasibility study by the Keck Institute for Space Studies (http://www.kiss.caltech.edu/study/asteroid/asteroid_final_report.pdf) that found the cost for a mission to return a 7 meter in diameter asteroid to lunar orbit to be $2.6 billion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.185.126.209 (talk) 05:38, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

asteroid catching and retrieval
where does it belong ? the same strategies to avoid can be used for retrieval Asteroid-impact_avoidance should i make a new page or put it here ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beaucouplusneutre (talk • contribs) 09:32, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

more Image needed -- reqphoto tag added
This article could really use more drawings or artist's conceptions of asteroid mining. I'm adding a reqphoto tag.--Beaucouplusneutre 18:21, 27 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beaucouplusneutre (talk • contribs)

neo detection
can we expand a little on that ? does someone knows if they are telescopes ( radio or spectro) that specifically try to detect neos presence and composition ? --Beaucouplusneutre (talk) 20:07, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

what do you think if we add some videos of talks abouts asteroid mining ? (sff or ssi as exemple)

nice website with cool pictures
http://www.asteroidmines.net/--Beaucouplusneutre (talk) 15:58, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

video
old video of asteroid retrieval mission (2004 ) http://www.planetarydefense.info/resources/sitemap.html# video of lee valentine the panel is also interesting. does someone have found other video like that ? idea recommended, transponder and multiple kinetic impact on several neos (for caracterization)

what i would like on wiki is a directory of video about space subjects, so i try to add some, its so much easier to understand the subject.--Beaucouplusneutre (talk) 11:37, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

 * Offhand I don't see an on-wiki video about asteroid retreival, but Commons:Category:Videos of space exploration and its parents, children, siblings and other kincats have many on space subjects. Jim.henderson (talk) 02:16, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Moon/planet mining
I am aware the phrase asteroid mining is well known and in common usage, and is what I would type if looking for this article. But would mining of other planets and moons be the same scope, would it be included in asteroid mining, if not where would it be included, if yes, should this be article be another title? extra terrestrial mining, maybe? I see we have In-situ resource utilization but that is using minerals mined in space, in space, if we took those minerals back to Earth it would not be In-situ resource utilization. But it would still be asteroid mining or extraterrestrial mining. Carlwev (talk) 18:23, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

elvis equation
. --Gravitophoton (talk) 09:31, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * -> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-25716103 & http://arxiv.org/abs/1312.4450. --Gravitophoton (talk) 09:25, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

"unlimited resource of materials"
The Asteroid mining section seems weirdly worded, a bit like an advertisement. Especially: "Asteroid mining has the potential to provide the world with an unlimited resource of materials" Skasski (talk) 07:58, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

deep space act 2014
Bipartisan Legislation Promotes Commercial Space Ventures,, could be important for the article , some more refs are here: ,. --Gravitophoton (talk) 13:26, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Legal Framework
I think a discussion of the legal framework and property rights should be added to this article. SarahLawrence Scott (talk) 18:45, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

The article quotes "Hobe (2006) explains that the Outer Space Treaty “explicitly and implicitly prohibits only the acquisition of territorial property rights” – public or private, but extracting space resources is allowable." Show me the line in The Outer Space Treaty which does so, and I'll show you the ACTUAL line in other treaties beyond national borders, which really does prohibit private citizens directly. UNCLOS Art 137, and Moon Treaty Art 11, para. 3 -- A direct prohition on 'natural persons'? Now THAT'S how you ban property rights for private citizens. The Outer Space Treaty doesn't come close to such a ban. (talk) 05:43, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

BRD discussion on "scarcity"
I recently edited the section on Scarcity in an attempt to make the prose more correct with the standard economic understanding of scarcity, which is also the understanding that is reflected in the linked article on scarcity, linked in the section introduction.

Another editor, acting in good faith, reverted my edit with the edit comment: "the point is that there is so much out there relative to what we need that resources will no longer be scarce"

So rather than have the start of a revert back-and-forth in the article mainspace, let's Discuss it here, under the standard WP:BRD process. N2e (talk) 13:26, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Because of shear amount of resources contained in asteroids, the standard scarcity-based economic thinking may no longer apply. That's the point of that sentence, not that it may simply lower cost (which it would, of course, also do). --JorisvS (talk) 13:32, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

 * Well, actually, it does apply. Scarcity doesn't mean quite what you think it does.  Scarcity has to do with the notion of what humans want, relative to that which is available to them, at any particular point in time and at any particular point of the state of human technology.  So for example, with respect to asteroids, I would concur with you that the total amount of stuff out there is (virtually) unlimited.  But that doesn't make the amount of stuff for any particular human purpose at any time and in any place unlimited.  Asteroidal materials, both in the raw state, the collected ore state, and in the refined state (refined to whatever level particular humans might prefer them when they purchase them) remain scarce.  Scarcity is not obviated.

 * Now, having said all that, I will say that the sentence I added in trying to make it better (and which you reverted) is not the most articulate and encyclopedic sentence I've ever written. I left it, after my edit, as:  "Scarcity is a fundamental economic problem of humans having seemingly unlimited wants in a world of limited resources. Asteroid mining has the potential to provide lower cost resources, which could reduce the price for obtaining those materials, at particular locations in particular epochs with some given set of human technology."

 * Better might be "Scarcity is a fundamental economic problem of humans having seemingly unlimited wants in a world of limited resources. Asteroid mining has the potential to make lower-cost resources available, which could reduce the price for obtaining a wide variety of materials, especially resources for use in extraterrestrial locations beyond Earth-orbit."

 * (or even): "Scarcity is a fundamental economic problem of humans having seemingly unlimited wants in a world of limited resources. Asteroid mining has the potential to make dramatically lower-cost resources available, which could substantially reduce the price for obtaining a wide variety of materials, especially resources for use in extraterrestrial locations beyond Earth-orbit."

 * But is definitely incorrect to say, as the article does now, that scarcity will be eliminated. Quote from the article as it is right now, following your revert: "Scarcity is a fundamental economic problem of humans having seemingly unlimited wants in a world of limited resources. Asteroid mining has the potential to provide nearly unlimited resources, which could eliminate scarcity for those materials." Moreover, there is no reliable source whatsoever for that claim about eliminating scarcity for "those materials". N2e (talk) 14:45, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Asteroid mining is a game changer unrivalled in all of history, which also means that traditional wisdoms may not longer be true. The one scarce resource that will remain is human labor, and even there, more and more can and will be reallocated to robots and computers. Of course this will lead to an increased demand for resources per capita, but also to an more-rapidly increased ability to go get those resources and ability to make stuff. In a world with scarce resources human wants may look infinite, but this is no longer the case if everything is truly abundant. --JorisvS (talk) 16:09, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

 * What you say about game-changing may very well be true. Heck, I'm an optimist, and personally, I hope it's true.  But this being Wikipedia, what we can say in articles in this encyclopedia is what is verifiable, and what we have reliable sources on that can be cited in the article.

 * So while if this were to be found to be true in 10 or 30 or 100 years, it would be amazing, it isn't going to change the definition of scarcity as it is used in economics and economic thinking. "scarcity will be eliminated" just makes no sense, and shows a misunderstanding of the concept.  Thought experiment:  Even if every asteroid was loaded with clean, highly-refined oxygen, hydrogen, and refined hydorcarbons just waiting to flow out of the asteroidal material, and if spaceflight and access to space from terrestrial environs was orders of magnitude less expensive than it is today, then humans would still incur costs in getting there, in adding a connection valve to the asteroid so that the imagined hoses might be attached for humans to collect this (low-cost) resource, or costs to otherwise collect the material, pumping costs, transport costs, etc.  Each one of those costs (plus of course, locating, extracting, refining, transporting the asteroid in the first place) would have costs to humans, costs in normal pecuniary measures, plus costs in time (our most scarce resource) to obtain the asteroidal resources.  Each item I've listed here demonstrates that scarcity would not be eliminated. N2e (talk) 17:41, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Your problem here isn't in the scarcity in asteroids, its in clarifying your definition of scarcity. The resources are functionally unlimited for the forseeable future; what's at issue is the form & location of them, which, as I'm undertanding it, is what you mean by "scarcity". Clear that up, & you've dealt with the issue.  TREKphiler   any time you're ready, Uhura  18:48, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Prospecting a near-Earth asteroid with current cutting-edge technology is about as expensive as prospecting a potential mine on Earth and before you go there one can learn much more about them than a potential mine on Earth. Mining them is in many ways easier than mining on Earth, because it can be done in the clean vacuum of space with abundant free energy and without any gravity bothering the miner (such as no differentiation). A carbonaceous asteroid (say 20% volatiles in weight) ~75 meters across contains more water than used in the entire space shuttle program. A metallic asteroid a few hundred meters across contains more platinum-group metals than has been mined in all of human history. And such small asteroids are plentiful and some of them are easier to reach than the surface of the Moon. Asteroid mining will be done fully robotically. All of this is sourceable.
 * "Scarcity is the fundamental economic problem of having seemingly unlimited human wants in a world of limited resources. It states that society has insufficient productive resources to fulfill all human wants and needs." – The point is that asteroid mining combined with ever accelerated technological advancement is such a game changer that there will quickly be more productive resources than necessary to meet all human needs (which may look infinite at present, but are in fact quite finite). --JorisvS (talk) 18:49, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * ♠I agree with you on all of it. The problem is explaining what "scarcity" means in the context in question, as opposed to the general reader's erstanding (& mine ;p ).
 * ♠BTW, asteroid mining also offers solutions to living space problems, & energy-access (presuming locating them in the Trojan points, & or building SPS with asteroidal material at same is done), which puts paid to the complaints of expense of building SPS IMO. (Even leave off the O'Neill habs.)  TREKphiler   any time you're ready, Uhura  19:00, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The difference between the day-to-day definition and the economic one is not very relevant, because it is both defined as the economic and what I've said holds regardless. And the same statement but for building things also holds. --JorisvS (talk) 19:13, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

It seems this discussion has been more challenging than I would have thought, and consensus is eluding us. I've said my piece on this for now, and will just let that stand. In any event, the next challenge will be to look at it again in a few weeks or months and see whether reliable sources have been found to justify this rather novel and unique usage of the term "scarcity" as applied to asteroid mining. As it stands now, it is unsourced, and I have challenged it in the article. N2e (talk) 19:52, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * What new usage of the term? I've used it as defined here and in the article about it. --JorisvS (talk) 19:55, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

 * The way your revert to the article is using the term scarcity is incorrect. Moreover, the idea that "scarcity will be eliminated ..." is just plain not true, in any scenario, currently theorized or in practice, relative to asteroids.  With your understanding, you would fail the scarcity part of the exam in any Econ 101 class.

 * However, seeing that no consensus seemed imminent here on the Talk page where I opened this BRD a few days ago, I've simply stepped back and don't choose to argue with you about that point. Instead, we will just see if sources can be found to support several related statements in the article.  If not, they will be removed from the article per WP:V in due time, rather than from any consensus on the BRD of how to use the notion of economic "scarcity" correctly in the English Wikipedia.
 * Scarcity as defined here and in its article ("the fundamental economic problem of having seemingly unlimited human wants in a world of limited resources. It states that society has insufficient productive resources to fulfill all human wants and needs.") will be eliminated by large-scale asteroid mining combined with exponential advancements in technology. There is "seemingly" in that definition: human wants and needs are seemingly unlimited (but not actually so). They only seem unlimited because of the traditional lack of capability to surpass them. It's the latter that will change. If "scarcity" is not properly defined here, then that could change a lot, though. --JorisvS (talk) 10:06, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

No, scarcity will not be eliminated. If you think that, you just don't know what scarcity means. And do note, this entire section is in a section of the article entitled "Economics"; so what the economic definition of that term is is important. Scarcity is not about how much stuff there is, it is about what stuff might be of interest to humans as economic actors, and at what opportunity cost it is useful to human endeavors, whether there is a lot of stuff, or rather less stuff, in the environs that humans frequent.

As someone smarter than me once said: "You are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts." If we anthropomorphize economics we could say "Economics" doesn't care about your opinion; what are your facts?

Or another way to think about it is, as the economist Walter Williams taught me in graduate school: "Reality is not optional!" We might want scarcity to be eliminated. But it won't be. There is always a cost associated with every action, and picking up asteroidal resources in the vacuum of space is no exception to that reality.

But I'm not going to keep arguing with you here. Ultimately, all those unsourced claims in the article will be sourced, or they won't be. If they are not, then they will not be able to stay in the article over the long term. Let's talk again in a month or two and see if any sources have been found to support all those claims. N2e (talk) 01:09, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Then fix the definition, especially in the article about it. You're claiming it's wrong. Do note that we have post-scarcity economy, though. --JorisvS (talk) 10:55, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * JorisvS wrote: "Mining them [asteroids] is in many ways easier than mining on Earth, because it can be done in the clean vacuum of space with abundant free energy and without any gravity bothering the miner..." These seem to be just the opinions of JorisvS about something that has not actually been demonstrated. If mining the asteroids were easier than mining on Earth, someone would be doing it.  Since no one mines asteroids, it is evidently not easy.  Vacuum has some useful properties for mining and industry but detrimental properties as well.  It causes lubricants to dry up and causes dust particles to retain electrical charge from the solar wind and other sources.  The constant sunlight has UV components that can cause statically charged dust particles to jump off surfaces and fly about.  This combination of dust and vacuum requires equipment specifically designed to work in that environment.  Up until now this has not been done to the extent of having a machine last for a year or more on the moon.  There are no references that I know of to indicate that this problem should be absent from asteroids.  The lack of gravity means that if one tries to shovel ore into a spaceship's hold ore will fly off of the shovel instead and any bit that happen to get herded into the hold will likely bounce around and fly out again.
 * As of 24 August 2012 The Office of the Chief Technologist in assessment of the Robotic Asteroid Prospector project said that "The expected outcomes of this project include: ... Design concepts for the microgravity and vacuum prospecting, extraction, and ore processing system."
 * (In other words, they do not know how it will be done yet.)
 * I consider JorisvS unjustified in claiming that something that no one knows how to do is easy in any way. When mining asteroids is accomplished, we can determine the cost and scarcity of what it produces.  Until then claims that there is a potential for unlimited resources are WP:OR.  - Fartherred (talk) 17:13, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I didn't claim it was easier, only in 'many ways', most prominently that the targets can be studied from very far away, even Earth orbit. There are, indeed, also difficulties associated with it, most prominently that launching the necessary equipment into space is (still) extremely expensive, but you correctly mention some others. Nevertheless, mining (below) the deep sea has many difficulties of its own, with the extreme pressures and that the targets must be studied from up close, yet it is done despite those. The most important difference between those two is currently that the technologies required for deep-sea mining have been development, whereas they are still in the early stages of development for asteroid mining.
 * All 'my' claims come from people involved in Planetary Resources and Deep Space Industries and are publicly available, so they are not OR. --JorisvS (talk) 17:29, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * At 18:49 hours on the 17th of December 2014, above in this thread you posted exactly what I quoted. I do not know how it can help your argument to contradict yourself.  You write that the technologies are in the early stages of development for asteroid mining.  That is the very reason that you can not claim that asteroid mining could eliminate scarcity for resources.  How could we know how the development will turn out?
 * To find out what resources the article refers to, I look to the lead section where it states: "Materials that could be mined or extracted include iron, nickel, titanium for construction, water, and oxygen..." The troublesome statement lacking a citation in the scarcity section is: "...the relative abundance of asteroidal ore gives asteroid mining the potential to provide nearly unlimited resources, which could practically eliminate scarcity for those materials."  Now if you mean there will be no scarcity of looking at asteroidal ore with telescopes, you were editing the wrong article.  In the Astronomy article there is a section on specific subfields.  You could open a section on observation of asteroids.  Scarcity in a practical sense means that you can not get as much of the refined material in your warehouse as you might want, no matter how much ore is visible in a telescope.  If you want to support the statement lacking citation with statements by Planetary Resources and Deep Space Industries, I might point out that these entities have a conflict of interest.  They cannot be considered as having a neutral point of view, so their support for a statement could be identified as coming from them.  Contrary sources might also be cited to preserve a WP:NPOV for the article.  What are the specific statements the these organizations produced?  - Fartherred (talk) 22:18, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Better yet, where are the supporting statements from Planetary Resources and Deep Space Industries. I could read them myself without you violating the copyright by reproducing the exact words here.  - Fartherred (talk) 00:32, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note the word "could": it is a simple matter of understanding how much raw material there is in even a single smallish NEO (and how many of those are out there) compared to how much we've been using to understand that it could become a game changer. These companies just want to try to go out there and mine all those raw materials because they understand that if they succeed they change the world (and get rich in the process). And I don't copy-paste text, never ever. And don't take those companies' word for it, but look further; Mining the Sky says this exactly already in the preface at page xi: "The truth is that the resources available to us are, for all practical purposes, infinite.". --JorisvS (talk) 09:44, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I think that we are making progress toward a consensus. Mining the Sky could be used as a citation for the unlimited resources terminology.  Since Professor Lewis is admittedly an advocate of asteroid mining and unafraid of using superlatives in description, we could balance that with a statement about NASA's primitive position with regard to asteroid mining technology backed by the reference I gave from NASA's Office of the Chief Technologist.  People might assume that others have better plans than NASA admits to, but an asteroid mining venture going bust should be something readers are left to consider as a possibility.
 * I have sympathy for N2e's use of the term scarcity as economists would use it. I took some economics classes on my way to my bachelor's degree in engineering.  TREKphiler also has a point that average readers of Wikipedia might understand the term to mean such a lack of something as will cause a hardship.  About the only resource that I think economists would not consider scarce would be air before the industrial revolution.  It is scarce now because people can not use it to dump smoke in as much as they might want.  It should be stated that platinum group metals will still have high prices after successful asteroid mining has begun, because otherwise the mining companies would not be getting rich.
 * Mining companies might want space law to give them property rights to an asteroid for as long as they care to mine it and no responsibility for the tailings heaps they leave behind. Others might want mining companies regulated like ATT was regulated before it was broken up.  Whatever the case the article could give us some indication of the progress of space law if there is any progress to report.
 * What do you think? Is there any chance that the article can move forward?  - Fartherred (talk) 23:03, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * There is one more point: "...which could practically eliminate scarcity for those materials." is one possibility if asteroid mining is practically possible given the current state of human technology; and which couldn't practically eliminate scarcity for those materials is another possibility if asteroid mining is practically impossible given the current state of human technology. Stating the former and not the latter should be supported by a reference that asteroid mining is practically possible.  - Fartherred (talk) 23:23, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Let me put this more plainly. I do not know whether the investors in Planetary Resources are wise and likely to make a bunch of money or they are not wise and likely to loose all that they have invested.  The article addresses the question of what ores are available in asteroids but does not at all address the question of whether it is possible to mine those ores at a profit.  Professor Lewis is a professor of planetary science, not of space technology.  He can not be expected to have a professional opinion on whether the mining of asteroids is possible.  The article is defective in not addressing the question or at least making it plain that any profit suggested for mining asteroids is completely dependent upon that mining operation being possible.  I have my own idea of what would be necessary for economic mining of the asteroids, but I cannot put OR into Wikipedia.  - Fartherred (talk) 01:28, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * We should certainly include NASA's statements about it; it wouldn't be complete without. And a mining operation going bust is, of course, a serious possibility. A mining company can make money in other ways than directly from the mining operations. People from Planetary Resources have said somewhere that they're already making a profit. "Scarcity" appears to have multiple distinct meanings, aside from a synonym for "rarity", there is the one as defined in that article (which can be eliminated), and maybe an even more stringent version used in economics. From discussing this with you, I think we should be able to work out something neutral. I'll try to find something that says something about the feasibility of the technology necessary for asteroid mining later. --JorisvS (talk) 10:17, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * There is no scarcity of volunteer work available for us. - Fartherred (talk) 13:08, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * That's quite right! --JorisvS (talk) 16:04, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Destination...
Why doesn't anyone seem to mention that the most obvious reason to mine an asteroid isn't to bring it back to the surface of the Earth, but to move the material to some location either in orbit around the earth or moon where it can be utilized there. The economics are not in the availability of rare or valuable products, but simply the savings of not needing to launch say several thousand tons of steel to build space stations and ships. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.52.113.7 (talk) 02:53, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Were self-replicating machines demonstrated?
Where does the editor who wrote this get a one month doubling time and a one kilogram mass for a self-replicating machine instead of a two year doubling time and 100 tons of manufacturing equipment made to endure the outer space environment. It seems likely WP:OR to me. - Fartherred (talk) 21:25, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It has been five days now and no one has provided a citation for what seems to be WP:OR. It has been four years since Siafu deleted the same uncited text on the 11th of November 2010 at 18:07 hours.  That is time enough.  Do not replace 1 kilogram self replicating machine comments in article without a reference.  - Fartherred (talk) 14:47, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Replacing redirect with DAB page
Disruptive links to the redirect, Economics of extraterrestrial resource extraction, have been removed from Colonization of the Moon, Colonization of Mars, and Space habitat. I have suggested to the author of the redirect, User:N2e, that the redirect itself should be deleted but he would not cooperate making that process more difficult. So instead I would like to convert the redirect into a DAB page in which readers can choose an article as they wish for information about the economics of extraterrestrial resource extraction: Colonization of the Moon, Colonization of Mars, or Asteroid mining. I offer a link to my concept of the page at Talk:Economics of extraterrestrial resource extraction. Check it out and comment if you like. - Fartherred (talk) 09:23, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Rather, it looks very much like a topic for a separate encyclopedic article, not just for a redirect or dab page. Sources won't be any problem. --JorisvS (talk) 08:44, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * If the title had been an article at the time the links were made, it would have been easy enough to find words and phrases that could be properly linked to it. If someone has the time to write the article, I approve.  - Fartherred (talk) 14:44, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Costs
is that a good ref? Advanceddeepspacepropeller (talk) 08:58, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd call Bloomberg News reliable.  TREKphiler   any time you're ready, Uhura  20:26, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 08:28, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Asteroid mining. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050205082301/http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/WEBONLY/publicfeature/aug01/aster.html to http://www.spacefuture.com/archive/the_technical_and_economic_feasibility_of_mining_the_near_earth_asteriods.shtml

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:32, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Aliens
The last sentence in the "Purpose" reads: "Why extraterrestrials would have resorted to asteroid mining in near proximity to earth, with its readily available resources, has not been explained." Any space creatures (i.e. anyone who has gotten off of a planet and into space and has acquired the materials/skills/technology to survive there permanently) are going to be loathe to land on a planet. The energy and material costs are just too high. And they might not be extraterrestrials. Humans have been around long enough that we could have developed a space faring civilization in the distant past. You might think that if such a thing had happened there would be some evidence of it, but remember, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Pergelator 50.43.36.155 (talk) 22:18, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 one external links on Asteroid mining. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110607073757/http://www.science.org.au/nova/newscientist/027ns_005.htm to http://www.science.org.au/nova/newscientist/027ns_005.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110706211417/http://www.geology.utoronto.ca/Members/brenan/Brenan%20and%20McDonough,%202009.pdf to http://www.geology.utoronto.ca/Members/brenan/Brenan%20and%20McDonough,%202009.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928081643/http://www.4frontierscorp.com/dev/assets/Economic%20Viability%20of%20Mars%20Colonization.pdf to http://www.4frontierscorp.com/dev/assets/Economic%20Viability%20of%20Mars%20Colonization.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060331081029/http://www.newmaterials.com:80/news/833.asp to http://www.newmaterials.com/news/833.asp
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304193730/http://abob.libs.uga.edu/bobk/ccc/cc080498.html to http://abob.libs.uga.edu/bobk/ccc/cc080498.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120307155718/http://www.technovelgy.com/ct/content.asp?Bnum=1930 to http://www.technovelgy.com/ct/content.asp?Bnum=1930
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130117185138/http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Mining_guide to https://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Mining_guide

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:30, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Asteroid mining. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.geology.utoronto.ca/Members/brenan/Brenan%20and%20McDonough%2C%202009.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120910234035/http://b612foundation.org/media/sentinelmission/ to http://b612foundation.org/media/sentinelmission/

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:43, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Asteroid mining. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140903181824/http://kiss.caltech.edu/workshops/asteroid2011/video/public-lecture/9_public_lecture.html to http://kiss.caltech.edu/workshops/asteroid2011/video/public-lecture/9_public_lecture.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:44, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Asteroid mining. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121010142546/http://www.planetaryresources.com/technology/ to http://www.planetaryresources.com/technology/

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:54, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Introduction assumes Asteroid Mining is practical
The article begins "Minerals can be mined from an asteroid or spent comet, then used in space for construction materials or taken back to Earth."

Asteroid mining has never been done, as admitted at the end of the same paragraph:

"Due to the high cost of spaceflight, inaccurate identification of asteroids suitable for mining, and ore extraction challenges, terrestrial mining remains the only means of raw mineral acquisition today."

Hence I propose changing the first sentence to "Minerals would be mined from an asteroid or spent comet, then used in space for construction materials or taken back to Earth." Tomtul2 (talk) 05:33, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

 * Thanks, Besides following your suggestion I looked at it some more and decided the paragraph was too long, containing detailed lists that ought not be included in the intro. Perhaps we can think of something more useful to put in those paragraphs. Jim.henderson (talk) 00:40, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

"Proposed Mining Projects" = outdated ad for private companies?
The first two paragraphs of the Proposed Mining Projects section read almost like an ad for the company Planetary Resources. It seems to have an implicit bias towards the company, is severely out of date, and in cites primary sources. The later paragraphs have some similar issues. I propose heavily reducing this section until it can be rewritten in a way that is more in-line with WP (Wikipedia Policy).

Some examples:
 * 1) "They also plan to create a fuel depot in space by 2020 by using water from asteroids, splitting it to liquid oxygen and liquid hydrogen for rocket fuel", as I write this it is late 2020 and as far as I am aware no such mission has occurred. This statement is outdated.
 * 2) "The plan has been met with skepticism by some scientists, who do not see it as cost-effective, even though platinum is worth $32 per gram and gold $49 per gram as of September 2019", this sentence has an implicit bias. If such a sentence is included it should be done as a specified quote from another party. The article should describe disputes from the perspective of a neutral observer, with an impartial tone: see WP:IMPARTIAL.

By definition it is the nature of this section to be speculative - which makes it difficult to write whilst staying within WP. I do see the merit of such a section, it certainly is exciting for a reader to see how the first steps towards missions such as these are being taken today. That said, I believe such a section should be rewritten to be shorter, more conservative, and less outdated.

If other editors have any input I would like to hear it, perhaps I have been too harsh in my assessment. For now I have simply added an "outdated" tag. PhysicsSean (talk) 21:08, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Lewis 1993
I just removed a harvnb reference to Lewis 1993, that was supporting that a 1 km asteroid wouldmhave 2bn metric tons of iron-nickel ore. There is no Lewis 1993 work in the article, and the other John Lewis (1992/1997/8) works don't mention this detail. Also elsewhere it seems he said that 2bn tons was the total weight of a 1km asteroid, not just the iron-nickel ore (this is mentioned by others, but I can't find where Lewis said it). - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 11:22, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Asteroid mining methods
The main article doesn't mention alternative methods of extraction and refinement of materials mined from asteroids. Using a large, highly focused beam of concentrated sunlight would be able to superheat surface materials and cause them evaporate into space, opening a path to extraction of elements of interest from deeper in the body of the asteroids. Similarly, concentrated sunlight would provide the power needed to operate gigantic mass spectrometers, where a beam of evaporites from the asteroid could be ionized and then separated by mass into different material streams, even down to individual isotopes of the same element- and then directed to some container for capture. A system of such machines around the asteroid could provide power to operate the mining continuously. 2601:89:C701:9190:757E:A76E:2F:340E (talk) 00:16, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Asteroid mining


text:
Pope Theodosius of Alexandria

Pope Theodosius of Alexandria may refer to:

 * Pope Theodosius I of Alexandria, ruled in 535–567
 * Pope Theodosius II of Alexandria, ruled in 730–742
 * Pope Theodosius III of Alexandria, ruled in 1293–1300

title: Pope Theodosius of Alexandria


text:
Card marking

Card marking is the process of altering playing cards in a method only apparent to marker or conspirator, such as by bending or adding visible marks to a card. This allows different methods for card sharps to cheat or for magicians to perform magic tricks. To be effective, the distinguishing mark or marks must be visible on the obverse sides of the cards, which are normally uniform. Card marking is often used to cheat when gambling or for card tricks. Many casinos, particularly those in Las Vegas alter the decks of cards they sell to tourists – either by punching holes through the middle of cards or trimming their edges – to prevent cheaters from returning to the game tables after buying the cards and then slipping the favorable cards into their hands when playing.

Marked cards can be used regardless of who shuffles and deals the cards. Some more sophisticated marked-cards scams involve additional manipulative skills to steer the cards into the correct positions once the desired cards have been identified.

History
The first attempts to mark playing cards involved bends, crimps and tiny pinprick bumps known as "blisters", resembling the Braille script. Later, when the first designs appeared on the backs of playing cards, cheats began altering the designs on the backs of cards. Hustlers have used various inks, pigments and scratches, to add or remove lines or patterns from the back of the card design. Some varieties of card marking include block-out work, cut-out work, scroll work, shade work and tint work.

More recently, science and technology have also enhanced marked-card techniques. Modern technologies are variations of shade techniques. Traditional block-out and cut-out work have the disadvantage that they must be read close-up, because the marks are small. On the other hand, another advantage of luminous and juice marked-card technology is that they can be read close-up or from across a table.

Block-out
Block-out work is simply using the same color ink as the back of the card and coloring in small white areas of the card. For example, sometimes people add ink to the flowers on the back of a card by making the petals narrower or blocking out a bird on the back design.

Tinting
A more subtle variation on blocking, card backs can be marked by lightly tinting certain areas of a detail. Rather than blocking out the entire petal on a flower detail, the petal is washed with a light ink of a similar colour to the card ink.

Cut-out
Cut-out work is use of a razor to scrape off some of the printed areas of the card, such as adding (cutting out) a white bird to the back design.

Shading

 * Luminous marking - These can only be read by using special gimmick sunglasses or by wearing contact lenses. The original luminous systems used red lenses and greenish ink on the back of red cards, though more recent variations use chemicals applied to the cards.
 * Video-luminous marking - Video-luminous cards use marks that can not be seen by the human eye, even through a luminous filter. The marks can only be read by using custom-designed electronics and filters and displayed on a TV monitor in another room to a partner. Then the card values may be signaled or transmitted to the player who needs to know. Video-luminous does not have to be used for cheating. They may be used for magic or by a poker house or person who may want to analyze a card game after the fact. If collusion is suspected, the recorded images of the marked cards may be played back later to detect any unusual play. If a player consistently folds a good hand when a partner plays a better hand, then it can be assumed that collusion is taking place in the game. Since these marks cannot be seen by the human eye, there is no chance of detection of the marks, even by knowledgeable players, during the game. Often such marked decks will only be introduced by the house when suspected colluders are seated.
 * Juice-marking - The marks are only visible when a person is trained to read the marks. No filtered sunglasses are required, although glasses can be used to make it easier to spot these marks.
 * Tintwork or shade - This technique uses a tint solution to mark cards, but the marking patterns vary depending upon the back design of the cards being marked.
 * Daub - A special paste is used by a player to mark someone else's deck, on the fly, while the cards are being used during a game and even while being watched. This eliminates the need to switch in a pre-marked deck of cards.
 * Juice dust - An advanced type of daub, it may be used to make an ad hoc juiced deck. Like daub, it also allows a player to mark someone else's deck, on the fly, while being watched. The main advantages of juice dust are that it will not dull the finish of the cards and that it works on both paper and 100% plastic playing cards.

It is not necessary to mark the entire deck in order to gain an advantage in most types of poker - even marking just one rank (especially the aces) is enough to gain a significant advantage in a game such as Texas hold 'em.

Detecting marked cards
Some marked cards can be identified by performing the gamblers' riffle test (also known as "going to the movies"). Looking at the back of the cards while they are being riffled, the marks will "dance" around the back of the cards, provided that the viewer knows what sort of marks to look for. The riffle test is less effective for detecting cards marked with luminous and juice methods.

Reflected light off the back of the card will reveal cut-out work (scratches or white ink), as well as many inks or solutions that tend to dull the finish on playing cards because they are alcohol-based. Only the highest quality solutions will not burn the finish of cards. Placing a drop of alcohol on a card and then looking at the finish by reflecting light off the back reveals the dulling effect that these cheap solutions can cause.

title: Card marking


text:
John Spillane

John Spillane (born 1961) is a singer-songwriter from Cork, Ireland.

Background
Spillane grew up in the Cork suburb of Wilton, in a family of five boys. He was educated in Coláiste an Spioraid Naoimh, Bishopstown. Raised by his mother, she influenced his musical nature and taught him a variety of Cork songs including "The Banks of My Own Lovely Lee" and "The Lonely Woods of Upton". A shy child who shunned the spotlight, he got his first guitar at the age of fifteen and joined his first band in school. When he first began his main influences derived from artists like the Beatles, Neil Young, Planxty and Bob Dylan. His beginnings were more rock than anything else until he had a change of heart.

"When I started out with rock bands, I sang in an American accent. Then I heard real Americans sing the blues and it made me feel like a fraud. Ever since then, the most important thing for me is to be true to who I am and where I come from."

After finishing the leaving cert he took a hiatus to briefly work as a clerk in the Bank of Ireland, but his old band lured him back to his real calling, music. He hopped in a van with his band 'Sabre' and toured around Ireland playing rock music. It all fell apart according to Spillane but it was no matter as at that point he had realised that trad was what he really wanted to immerse himself in and began his career as a professional musician at the age of 20.

Musical collaborations and beginnings
In Spillane's early career he was involved with several bands but most notably were Nomos and The Stargazers. Taken under the wing of renowned whistle player Noel Shine, Spillane spent several years playing with the local jazz vocal group The Stargazers. It was at this time he studied in UCC obtaining a degree in Irish and English.

It was in 1992 when the young trad band Nomos changed Spillane's life. The band was made up of concertina player Niall Vallely, Donegal fiddler Liz Doherty (replaced by Cork fiddle player Vince Milne on the second album), bodhrán player Frank Torpey, and Gerry McKee on mandocello and bouzouki. Spillane played acoustic guitar and fretless electric bass while also contributing songs to the group. Together they toured the world and produces two albums Set You Free and I Won't Be Afraid Anymore. Spillane then left to pursue a solo career.

Celebration of the Irish language
Spillane is an advocate of the resurgence of the Irish language having released two albums almost entirely in Irish. The first being a collaboration with Irish poet Louis de Paor under the pseudonym "The Gaelic Hit Factory". The album of the same name was critically acclaimed and Spillane and De Paor combined their talents to win the Realta Irish song contest two years in a row. The second being the recent double platinum selling album Irish Songs We Learned at School which was recorded with students from a school in Ballincollig and features thirteen traditional Irish songs. Spillane is noted to have followed the release (and continues to do so) with a school tour to promote the Irish language through music to young people. A song from the album was featured on the 2013 compilation album Larry Kirwan's Celtic Invasion.

Spillane in Africa
In October 2007 asked by TG4, Spillane filmed a twelve-day musical visit to Senegal in West Africa. It was part of a series called Ceoilchuairt which sent different musicians to different parts of the world to interact with musicians from different cultures and learn from them.

An excerpt from his journal describes an experience from that trip: "Another day found us on the Isle de Goréé, the chief station for the deportation of slaves from West Africa to the Americas. A World Heritage Site and a museum to the appalling history of man's inhumanity to man. "If all the sea were ink, and all the sky were made of paper, there would not be enough ink or paper to write down the human suffering caused by the Slave Trade." The show itself was repeated due to its popularity and Spillane has since collaborated with TG4 on a documentary about emigration.

Instruments
Spillane has said that "my most treasured possession is my Spanish guitar, a Cabballero by Rodruigez, Guitarra de Artisania, Almansa, Espana".

Discography

 * The Wells of the World (1997)
 * Will We Be Brilliant or What? (2002)
 * Hey Dreamer (2005)
 * The Gaelic Hit Factory (2006)
 * My Dark Rosaleen & the Island of Dreams (2008)
 * Irish Songs We Learned at School (2008)
 * More Irish Songs We Learned in School (2009)
 * Rock to Cling to (2011)
 * Life In An Irish Town (2013)
 * The Man Who Came in from the Dark (2014)
 * 100 Snow White Horses (2021)

Meteor Awards

 * 2003 || || Best Folk/Traditional Act || Won
 * rowspan="2" | 2006 || rowspan="2" | || Best Trad and Folk || Won
 * Best Irish Male ||
 * 2009 || || Best Traditional/Folk ||
 * }
 * Best Irish Male ||
 * 2009 || || Best Traditional/Folk ||
 * }
 * }

title: John Spillane


text:
List of HTML editors

The following is a list of HTML editors.

Source code editors
Source code editors evolved from basic text editors, but include additional tools specifically geared toward handling code.

 * ActiveState Komodo
 * Aptana
 * Arachnophilia
 * Atom
 * BBEdit
 * Coda
 * Codelobster
 * CoffeeCup HTML Editor
 * Dreamweaver
 * Eclipse with the Web Tools Platform
 * Emacs
 * EmEditor
 * Geany
 * HomeSite
 * Kakoune
 * Kate
 * Notepad++
 * NetBeans IDE
 * PHPEdit
 * PhpStorm IDE
 * PSPad
 * RJ TextEd
 * SciTE
 * Smultron
 * Sublime Text
 * TED Notepad
 * TextMate
 * TextPad
 * TextWrangler
 * UltraEdit
 * Vim
 * Visual Studio
 * Visual Studio Code
 * WebStorm

WYSIWYG editors
HTML editors that support What You See Is What You Get (WYSIWYG) paradigm provide a user interface similar to a word processor for creating HTML documents, as an alternative to manual coding. Achieving true WYSIWYG however is not always possible.

 * Adobe Dreamweaver
 * BlueGriffon
 * Bootstrap Studio
 * CKEditor
 * EZGenerator
 * Freeway
 * Google Web Designer
 * Jimdo
 * KompoZer
 * Maqetta
 * Microsoft Expression Web
 * Microsoft SharePoint Designer
 * Microsoft Visual Web Developer Express
 * Microsoft Publisher
 * Mobirise
 * NetObjects Fusion
 * Opera Dragonfly
 * SeaMonkey Composer
 * Silex website builder
 * TinyMCE
 * TOWeb
 * UltraEdit
 * Webflow
 * Wix.com

Word processors
While word processors are not ostensibly HTML editors, the following word processors are capable of editing and saving HTML documents. Results will vary when opening some web pages.

 * AbiWord
 * Apache OpenOffice
 * Apple Pages
 * AppleWorks
 * Collabora Online
 * Kingsoft Office
 * LibreOffice Writer
 * Microsoft Word
 * WordPerfect

WYSIWYM editors
WYSIWYM (what you see is what you mean) is an alternative paradigm to WYSIWYG, in which the focus is on the semantic structure of the document rather than on the presentation. These editors produce more logically structured markup than is typical of WYSIWYG editors, while retaining the advantage in ease of use over hand-coding using a text editor.
 * Lyx (interface to Latex/Tex, via which can convert to/from HTML)
 * WYMeditor

Discontinued editors
Editors that have been discontinued, but may still be in use or cited on published web pages
 * Adobe Brackets
 * Adobe GoLive (replaced by Adobe Dreamweaver)
 * Adobe Muse
 * Adobe PageMill (replaced by Adobe GoLive)
 * AOLpress
 * Amaya
 * Apple iWeb
 * Claris Home Page
 * HotDog
 * HoTMetaL (replaced by XMetaL)
 * KompoZer
 * Macromedia HomeSite (replaced by Adobe Dreamweaver)
 * Microsoft Expression Web
 * Microsoft FrontPage (replaced by Microsoft Expression Web and Microsoft SharePoint Designer)
 * Microsoft WebMatrix
 * Mozilla Composer (replaced by Nvu and SeaMonkey Composer)
 * Netscape Composer
 * Nvu (replaced by KompoZer and BlueGriffon)
 * OpenOffice.Org (replaced by Apache OpenOffice and LibreOffice)
 * SnapEditor
 * tkWWW
 * WebPlus
 * WorldWideWeb

title: List of HTML editors


text:
Bob Haro

Bob Haro (born June 29, 1958, in Pasadena, California) is an American former (retired from active competition) professional freestyle BMX rider turned artist and business executive. He is the founder of Haro Bikes and was one of the most important early innovators of BMX freestyle.

Early life
He began biking in his high school sophomore year when he ran out of money riding dirt bikes. His father bought him a Honda 100 and he stripped the bike down to compete in motorcycle races. He won over 50 motocross trophies by 1975.

Around 1976, he got into BMX biking by racing his brother's bike out behind a bike shop in San Diego. After moving to Stockton, California as a result of his parents' divorce, Bob really got started racing and riding for a sponsor for Molina's Bike Shop. He was one of a small group of BMX'ers in that town to perform many of the common tricks.

Career
In 1978, Haro teamed up with R. L. Osborn to form the very first freestyle BMX team, which made its debut at ABA's Winternationals in Chandler, AZ.

In 1981 Bob Haro and Bob Morales traveled on tour together performing shows all over the Midwest, Eastern United States, and parts of Canada to enthusiastic crowds. Also, in 1981, Haro was involved in the Steven Spielberg production of E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial as a stunt rider.

In 1981 Bob Haro designed the first frame and fork tailored to freestyle BMX. The frameset was manufactured by the bicycle company Torker and became commercially available in 1982 and was marketed as the Haro Freestyler.

He stopped riding in 1985 after four knee surgeries and, in 1987, he was inducted into the American Bicycle Association Hall Of Fame. In 1993 he founded his own company, Haro Design, Inc., a design and marketing company in Cardiff, CA.

Bob Haro also invented the style of Flatland BMX.

In 2012, as part of the London Olympic Games, Bob Haro choreographed the Dove bike sequence in the Opening ceremony.

title: Bob Haro


text:
Pope Peter IV of Alexandria

Peter IV was the 34th Coptic Pope and Patriarch of Alexandria from 567 to 576. Peter IV succeeded the exiled Pope Theodosius I on the latter's death in 567.

Because the Melkites were in control of Alexandria at the time, Peter IV lived in exile in the Enaton monastic complex.

title: Pope Peter IV of Alexandria