text:
Talk:Middle age

Article Organization
This subject has had a great deal of research done in recent years. I think this article would benefit from being restructured in a way that facilitates relevant content being added down the road. Removing the young adult section, and having it broken up into physical conginitive, cognitive and social development sections is I think where we should start. --Narrico (talk) 22:46, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

It's been a few months and I haven't heard back from anybody, so I am am gonna start moving forward with restructuring the page. I added a simplified form of the definition section to the lede paragraph, so I intend to remove that (please say something if you object, I want feedback). I also will remove the section on young adults and just leave links to the page on that subject. Narrico (talk) 17:53, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Definitions
The information about the US Census either needs to be backed up by citations or to be deleted. None of the footnotes have any mention of this stated "fact". Violet desiree (talk) 05:08, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

 * Where's the paragraph on men's ED issues in middle age, or we just analyzing "crones" here? B.S. 2603:7081:24F0:9240:CDEC:61B6:5227:E37A (talk) 23:27, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Is it absolutely necessary to push the fucken political tripe? Want to talk about influence? Look at AARP. Businesses tend to hire younger people because they work cheaper. "Age discrimination" has been with us forever. The difference today is that we don't put our old folk out in the field to die in the cold. And they're a lot older these days too. (Not to mention that the average  lifespan in the USA is 77.6 years and that makes "middle age" 38.8 (+/- 5?).

The definitions are great. The politics need to be left at home where they can be argued to divorce.

 * While you're right that the article shouldn't have stated it categorically as a fact, the proper place to argue would be at Ageism, where the sentence links. ThIS article merely states that ageism exists, which you appear to agree with above. — Asbestos | Talk  15:30, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Then again.... believe it or not,  there is a whole world outside the USA,  so the definition of "middle age" as being not old,  not young,  but somewhere in the middle,  is more accurate than assigning a specific age,  which would be different depending on where in the world you were. MR

35 is middle aged?!?!?! I'm in my late 20s, and 35 is NOT middle aged.

I'm responding to the sentence right above; I'm 37 & your right 35 is not middle age, 38 is. middle age ends at 43. old age starts at 65. in between 43-65 your old enough to know better, but still young enough to do it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.211.71.137 (talk) 03:29, 20 August 2009 (UTC) >your right 35 is not middle age, 38 is. middle age ends at 43.

This is some bizarre thinking.

In response to the above poster,40 is middle aged except one of those new fangled ideas which say you're old when you're 30 or even between 25-30 ;) 59.178.22.64 15:09, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

The only people who say 30 is old are people who are still living in shit the Stone Age. That is not a new idea, that is a very old idea.Bjoh249 (talk) 04:11, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

^That or they haven't (or only recently) completed puberty, or perhaps live somewhere with a life expectancy of about 45-50 (hence the "stone age" thing, I guess?). Funny thing is how there are many examples of people way back in time who have been documented to live past 70, and enough of them that I think rather than being a freak and underrecognized occurrence, it WAS a familiar picture of geriatric 'old age' in society, and the general concept might have remained more fairly static over time than we think (besides occuring in smaller numbers). And at the least it leads me to think that one's 30s, although not necessarily in the 'spring chicken' range, was still always closer to what 30s really SEEMS to be than any equivalent of a 'senior' person.

A lot of this talk comes from kids who seem genuinely convinced that life after 24 isn't something that can happen to them. I kind of blame the increased infantilization of youth, sheltering them from responsibility and naturally causing them to neglect the idea of a future life. There used to be more respect for adulthood. Theburning25 (talk) 14:32, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

From a pre-hospital medical perspective, middle adulthood begins at age 41 and goes to 60. Condorphoto (talk) 18:57, 29 January 2018 (UTC)Condorphoto

Middle-Aged People Raising Families?
The article said the following:

In many Western societies, this is seen to be the period of life in which a person is expected to have settled down in terms of their sense of identity and place in the world, be raising a family, and have established career stability.

Given that divorce is rife in Western societies and given that most people in Western societies do not see the significance of marriage (that is, it is no different to cohabitation) I think the paragraph above probably needs to be revised to removed.

--Knowledge-is-power (talk) 11:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

 * Then do it dude. Abtract (talk) 14:08, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

The quote you use here has not mentioned marriage so I do wonder at the validity of your point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.144.47 (talk) 23:29, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Middle age starts at 40
Middle age starts at 40. It makes sense that way as after 40 is when the risk of certain diseases and heart attacks becomes greater. Also after 40 is when people start getting age-related eye problems. Also, after the age of 40 most people start contemplating life with a different point of view; more mature, experienced and cautious. Esvake (talk) 00:21, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't it make more sense to have 0-25 be young, 25-50 middle aged, and 50 plus being old? at least in the first world (where i suppose most people don't live) you live to be about 75. so thirds makes sense. Of course that is entirely unsubstantiated original research. (i think that's the right wiki term.)

(Unless we are talking about phases of adulthood, and then 20-40, 40-60, and 60-80 makes sense.)

 * Indeed it is so, sadly, it can't go in the article. :) Abtract (talk) 05:23, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

 * Describing a person in their late 20s as middle aged is patently absurd.Wjfox2005 (talk) 11:12, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I see it differently. Youth is thd time before you have children, your main aim is finding a partner, middle age is dedicated to raising your children and old age is the time after that when your main focus is on raising grandchildren. Of course not everyone has children but the time frames should be based on the average person. 2A00:23C7:5AD0:8F01:F8B9:1738:CA6D:EE53 (talk) 15:08, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

This is too easy. The person above is right. On this planet we directly relate age to years and subsets of years. In the US of A our average life expectancy is 78, 75 is good also. To have a middle you need three parts. Therefore the first or young age would be around 0 through 26. Middle age is then 27 through 52 and third age or old age 53 on. An individual that just finished the fifth grade should be able to come to the same conclusion. You in your late 20's is also well into middle age. if you are suggesting that a person lives until he is 75 then middle age should be around 39 because when you say middle age you are suggesting a person is in his middle cycle of his life which means divided by 2 becomes 39.

I am 25 and i am not too sure that when I am 27 that I would be in my middle cycle because really my adult life as not begun. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.68.21.77 (talk) 05:52, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

 * Everyone's been saying life begins at 40. Wow, that's a bit disappointing.  Should that sort of thing be included in the article?Typing Monkey - (type to me) 10:43, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I figure the revision is a baby boomer thing. A very large number of people didn't want to be considered middle aged at 40, so it was revised up to 45. Likewise, a large number now (the biggest generation in existence) doesn't want to be considered "old" at 60, so they have demanded and got another 5 years. How long until we hear 60 is the new 30?

Junk Science:

The following statement-- "Advanced maternal age increases the risk of a child being born with some disorders such as Down syndrome. Advanced paternal age sharply increases the risk of miscarriage and many birth defects, including Down syndrome, schizophrenia, autism, decreased intellectual capacity, and bipolar disorder"-- is complete and utter nonsense. A famous example of a child born to "older parents" would be Rod Roddenberry, son of Star Trek founder Gene Roddenberry and Majel Roddenberry who were aged 53 and 41, respectively. As far as I know Mr. Roddenberry hasn't suffered any mental defects. I'm sure if you do a little research you can find more examples. My father was 51 and my mother was 39 when I was born. I took advanced placement classes in highschool and now have a Master of Science degree. I'm also a genealogist and study family histories. My maternal grandmother had her last child (my uncle) at age 43. Traditionally, familes in the United States have consisted of 11 to 18 children, in which case, many of the last children were born to female parents 35-49 with the male parent well into his sixties or even older. As of this writing, I have not found even one case of autism, decreased intellectual capacity or down syndrome. If you don't believe me then there are plenty of genalogical records available for you to research. A friend of mine has a child that has autism (both he and his wife are 29 and 25 respectively. My neighbors are in their mid-20's and they had a down syndrome child. I can't add any of this to the article because this consists of personal experience and my own genealogical research. (Which has been backed by many other researchers.) And, yes, observation and historical data are considered a valid part of the scientific method. Scientificly there are numerous factors that contribute to birth defects. The way this article is written makes it seem like the age of the parents are the major cause when in fact if the age of the parents are a factor, then it is an extremely small one. Just becuase someone waits until middle age to have children does not automaticly spell doom for thier children. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.154.39.194 (talk) 21:00, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

 * "I can't add any of this to the article because this consists of personal experience and my own genealogical research."

Exactly. Anything published in a Wikipedia article must be verified. As a scientist, you would know that the fact that some younger parents have children with Autism and Down Syndrome and some older parents have children who do NOT have Autism and Down Syndrome is not sufficient evidence that the likelihood of having a baby with either of these conditions increases (or does not increase) with age.

I don't think the article as it is written gives the impression that "the age of the parents are (sic) the major cause" of these conditions, nor does it give the impression that women can't have children in middle age. It's just a dispassionate statement of fact, and whether it makes anyone feel bad is somewhat beside the point. There are many other places online and elsewhere to find encouragement and advice. Sadiemonster (talk) 08:23, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

25 is not middle aged and 50 is not old age. I think that middle age is about from 45 to 60.--85.76.25.116 (talk) 23:04, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

 * The only "revision" that's occurred is the idea that middle age starts at "40". From the moment the term "middle age" was coined it was defined between the ages of 45-65. Inching it up earlier and earlier is a modern psychological phenomenon and, at best, a fringe view in professional research. The majority of authoritative sources use 45-65, and that needs to be reflected in this article.Jonathan f1 (talk) 06:54, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I mentioned here that I wouldn't call 40 for the middle age time frame fringe; see WP:Fringe. Like this Encyclopædia Britannica Online source states, "Though the age period that defines middle age is somewhat arbitrary, differing greatly from person to person, it is generally defined as being between the ages of 40 and 60." But it is true that 45-65 (or 45-64), rather than 40 and upward, is the more common age range given in sources for middle age. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:58, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * 40+ is definitely far more commonly used to describe someone becoming middle aged in most sources I gather online. The guy who coined midlife crisis was talking about how he felt between 35 and 45. The notion that it started at 45 and anything less is revisionism while acting like it's trending upward (at 45+) because we are living longer is absolutely inconsistent garbage. The truth is simple: we are not living longer than we used to, we are simply less likely to die at such a young age. 80 years old now is 80 years old back then, just with better healthcare, but even that's not enough to stop people from typically dying by the time they're close to 80. The people living past 100, 90, and even 85 or so are the exception, not the rule. Schwarbage (talk) 01:46, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 * This is the opposite of the truth. It was always 40-60. 45 came later on. Schwarbage (talk) 06:36, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

There's good sourcing posted and stating right at the beginning of the article that it normally starts at 45, and the third age starts at 65. Merriam Webster. The plural form (s) is also more correct.151.68.0.26 (talk) 00:58, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

The OP wrote this back in 2008, I think a lot of things have changed since then. “Middle age” is an offensive term that needs to go away, but as long as it exists I think it can be revised upward. More people are living past 100 than ever before.Bjoh249 (talk) 19:12, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

 * Most people do not live past 100, let alone past 80, even today. Schwarbage (talk) 01:37, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Let's Add Some Positives Please?
This article is far too dour in its listing and explication of the characteristics of middle age. I don't mean this in the sense that I am contesting what is thus far included--most of the material seems consensus-based and accurate. However, there are also biological, sociocultural, and socioeconomic aspects of middle age which are far more positive and, thus far, have not made their way into the section. I'll give a few examples:

 * At least within developed nations (meaning industrial and especially post-industrial), one's middle age years tend to be associated with peak earning power, both in terms of actual earnings and capcity-to-earn.
 * Recent neurological research has not only rebutted the notion that all aspects of mentation capacity monotonically decline during middle age but, in addition, identified areas where said capacity actually improves (e.g., the ability to handle complex patterned reasoning (vs. linearly ordered reasoning); judgment-based decisional processes).
 * The middle-age years tend to be associated with peak-status within familial units both immediate and extended. Meaning, factoring in earnings, social position, relative physical characteristics, experience, etc., the likelihood of having a dominant patriarchal or matriarchal position within a given family unit is most high during this period of time (recognizing that this is a broad generalization and does not hold within all cultures).

These are only examples. Yes, obviously, citations would need to be found. Yes, obviously, there are others. My only point is that the article comes across as far too negative. It's not inaccurate, but it is biased in the sense of what is included vs. what is excluded. Can we try to improve it? Does anyone ever actually read the discussions on wikipedia anymore if the topic doesn't involve an edit war or a request for deletion? Sigh. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.135.151.53 (talk) 14:21, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

So agreed more positives lol Nlivataye (talk) 14:25, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Reverting the first sentence
I've reverted the first sentence of the article to an older version, mainly because the older definition doesn't mention any particular age range. I think this is important because:

a) There doesn't appear to be any universally agreed age range

b) Several age ranges are mentioned (with their sources) later in the article. If needs be the Macmillan dictionary definition could be added there.

c) Putting dates in the first sentence leaves it rather open to vandalism - because the reference was not online, the date range had been changed a couple of times and for most people it's not possible to easily check the reference. When I first viewed this page, middle age had been defined as between 22 and 69, and the page had been like that for nine days.

TimTim (talk) 08:46, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

The mention of eggs being saved for an "unmarried woman" is irrelevant to the article
It is irrelevant and biased toward a particular family structure — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.173.28.106 (talk) 23:11, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Middle age. 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 User:Cyberpower678/FaQs for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20160414054718/https://www.heart.org/idc/groups/heart-public/@wcm/@sop/@smd/documents/downloadable/ucm_449846.pdf to https://www.heart.org/idc/groups/heart-public/@wcm/@sop/@smd/documents/downloadable/ucm_449846.pdf

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 15:10, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Some of the external links and references need to be updated. Some are outdated and some of the links are broken or lead to a site that has been taken down. Do you guys have any sites or sources that you like to go to find relevant information? Kimmigirl (talk) 03:37, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Reference to Erikson
Sorry all - the page was locked otherwise I'd have edited myself. The reference to Erikson's theory of Psychosocial Development has been inaccurately applied in this article.

I would suggest changing the article as such:

Cognitive characteristics

[Delete first sentence] Persons in middle adulthood or middle age may have some cognitive loss. This loss usually remains unnoticeable because life experiences and strategies are developed to compensate for any decrease in mental abilities.[7] Social and personality characteristics

Marital satisfaction remains but other family relationships can be more difficult. Career satisfaction focuses more on inner satisfaction and contentedness and less on ambition and the desire to "advance".[8] Even so, career changes often can occur. Middle adulthood or middle age can be a time when a person re-examines their life by taking stock, and evaluating their accomplishments. Morality may change and become more conscious.[citation needed] The perception that those in this stage of development of life undergo a "mid-life" crisis is largely false, however by Erik Erikson's theory of Psychosocial Development, middle age can be a stage of role transition, as children grow up and retirement looms. According to his theory, the middle aged adult successfully navigates this stage of life, termed 'Generativity vs Stagnation', by finding new roles, and new purpose, to keep life fulfilling. Furthermore, Erikson postulated that focus shifts from developing intimacy with a partner in younger adulthood, to care of children and grandchildren. Personality characteristics remain stable throughout this period.[1] The relationships in middle adulthood may continue to evolve into connections that are stable.[8] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.220.123.242 (talk) 09:57, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

One further small problem with the reference to Erikson as it now stands (02 July 2020). The article says, "Merriam-Webster lists middle age from about 45 to 64,[3] while prominent psychologist Erik Erikson saw it starting a little earlier and defines middle adulthood as between 55 and 65." This makes no sense - if Erikson's definition starts at age 55, then it is hardly "earlier" that the Merriam-Webster definition which starts at 45. I don't know which the word "earlier" should be replaced with "later" or some other change needs making. I'm not familiar with the debate - I was just trying to get some information about the definition of "middle age". Could someone who does know what this means please correct this sentence? Jorvikian (talk) 20:26, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Middle Age range shouldn't start at 45, it's cope.
More definitions start with and include 40 up to 44. Even Erikson's definition includes 40. If it were me, I'd say 40+ is full middle age, and 35-40 is the transition into it. Same with 60-65 for old age.

Not to mention all the effects of aging in your early 40s. That's definitely middle age. Schwarbage (talk) 06:25, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Post sources and justify it with them. WP:No original research. Also, this sounds a lot like the IP edit. You should be logged in when editing, per WP:LOUTSOCK. Crossroads -talk- 22:14, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * https://www.britannica.com/science/middle-age#:~:text=middle%20age%2C%20period%20of%20human,ages%20of%2040%20and%2060.
 * https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/middle-aged-adult#:~:text=People%20between%20the%20ages%20of,people%20who%20are%20middle%2Daged.
 * https://www.etymonline.com/search?q=middle%20age&ref=searchbar_searchhint
 * https://chambers.co.uk/search/?query=middle+age&title=21st
 * https://www.ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=middle%20age Schwarbage (talk) 23:19, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Okay, so we have good sourcing for 40. Ideally we would also look at WP:MEDRS sources, but this is a good baseline. Crossroads -talk- 00:45, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7347230/ - 40 to 60
 * https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4734389/ - 40 to 59
 * https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4280558/ - 40 to 59 Schwarbage (talk) 06:55, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
 * You have provided links to one organization. I do believe the definition of middle age has been raised to 45 for the most part. People are living a lot longer in 2023 and are in better health thanks to many folks taking care of one selves at younger ages vs 50 years ago. There is no concrete definition of middle age either as everyone ages differently. Quite frankly, I think we need to get rid of outdated terms like middle-age as they are outdated and offensive, but that’s an argument for somewhere else. I am just requesting that the sentence in the article that most sources use 40 to 60 as middle age be deleted and a stronger emphasis on arbitrary be added. The source linked to the sentence in question are generally from studies conducted in the 1990s. Here is a good article on the subject: https://jumbleandflow.com/2021/10/14/what-is-middle-age/Bjoh249 (talk) 09:06, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * It has not been raised to 45 anywhere except for some dictionaries, and many include 40. NCBI isn't just an 'organization', it's where many official research papers are published and many of these studies are funded by various different organizations and are often led by totally different people, who all happen to think 40+ encompasses middle age. That's also completely ignoring the fact that I listed several different credible sources for this that you seem to gloss over.
 * " People are living a lot longer in 2023"
 * No, no they aren't. People are just dying less at an earlier age, but you don't see many people live past 80 or so. Clearly you came here with an anti-middle age agenda and are probably 40+ or have family 40+ who do not want to be called what they are. Schwarbage (talk) 01:34, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Also, you're posting a random .com blog source to refute any of this. Really? The source you linked is people in their 60s coping that they aren't "old" on an irrelevant poll. I'd even wager 38 is (early) middle-aged, but you wouldn't want to have any of that. It's time people started embracing their age instead of holding onto youth forever. Schwarbage (talk) 01:36, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Worth protecting the page from vandalism?
What do you think? Schwarbage (talk) 15:13, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

 * I think you haven't the faintest idea as to what "middle age" means and your remarks on this talk page are bizarre and tendentious.
 * "Middle Age" does not mean "middle of your life", where "life" is defined as an "average" (80) and "midlife" is half that (40). No, it means the middle of adulthood -which, even assuming one lives until only 80, is not the age 40.
 * The CDC uses 45 -64, The US Census Bureau uses 45 -64 (since at least the early 80s), and most developmental psychology textbooks use 45 -65. Some leading experts in the field of adult development start midlife at 50, which is completely consistent with the general 45 -50 understanding.

 * And I see you went on the Midlife crisis article and changed sourced content to read 40? Do you understand that the sources supporting the definition you changed say 50 and 45? You need to revert yourself and refrain from editing these articles until you've achieved a consensus. Jonathan f1 (talk) 03:27, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Middle Age was quite literally coined to mean the period that is the middle of your life, as well as the middle of your adulthood. So the age range for a middle age person was always thought to be around your 40s and 50s, and maybe as early as 35 or as late as 65 (but only due to retirement age definitions).
 * Yes, some definitions do use 45-64, but I've provided plenty of examples of the range being outside of that.
 * "Do you understand that the sources supporting the definition you changed say 50 and 45? You need to revert yourself and refrain from editing these articles until you've achieved a consensus"
 * This is total lunacy. I only changed the definition or omitted it because oftentimes there was no source (particularly for the census bureau). The APA definition starts at 35, and they're considering the leading developmental psychologists in America. Are they wrong? Your source for the "developmental psychology textbooks" claim is from a random Cliffnotes.
 * No, I do not think I will revert anything. I have achieved a consensus (that 40 is part of middle age) while acknowledging later definitions. Schwarbage (talk) 09:12, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
 * On another note, I do not see anything wrong with the changes to the Midlife crisis article. One of the sources did not mention an age range and was a paper about people having midlife crises around age 50 (which is true but also mentions it can happen earlier or later). Another source was dead. A third source (Merriam Webster) has it I believe at 45-60? But again, a lot of dictionary definitions have it at 40-60ish.
 * I apologize if some of my previous remarks were uncalled for or rude, but yes, I do edit age-related articles sometimes, because there are a lot of inaccuracies or things that bother me a bit no matter the stage of life, or gaps that need to be filled in. Schwarbage (talk) 09:28, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
 * https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/demo/families/adults.html
 * This census (official government page) groups in 35-64 year olds as one. Hmmmm. Schwarbage (talk) 11:53, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Definition should be undefined
The sources that speak about 'middle age' (middle adulthood) and when it begins are inconsistent and range from 30 to 50 and everywhere in between.

The lead is wrong to state a definition as a "general consensus" when there is no general consensus and there are sources that say as much. The changes in the article were the work of one editor who seems to be obsessively editing age-related articles. Jonathan f1 (talk) 04:57, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

 * Thanks for pointing out. I reworded the first para, are you ok with this version? — kashmīrī  TALK  10:21, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't actually know what is the most 'common' way the term is used, or if it's even possible for us to make that determination. Here's just a small sample of research papers starting 'midlife' at age 45 or 50. And this paper on Russian women starts as low as age 33.
 * To make matters worse, a lot of these papers will pick random or semi-random ages between 30 and 50 and then write that 'middle age' is 'most commonly', 'typically', 'often' or 'usually' defined in that particular way, which can't all be true.
 * I would err on the side of caution. You're never going to find a consensus or 'most common' definition for something like this because people's views of aging are shaped by individual circumstance, subjective experience, prejudice and bias etc. This is no less true of researchers than ordinary people.
 * I have an idea on how to cover this more neutrally and in a way that's consistent with source material, but I'll have to get back with you tomorrow. Too busy tonight. Jonathan f1 (talk) 23:42, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * You're making the mistake of assuming that the definition is starting at the age of 50 or 45 in the majority of these studies, rather than assuming that that's just the specific age range chosen for the study itself and that they (rightfully) call them middle aged and older adults because those were the subjects surveyed. It doesn't mean it starts at 50, but rather the subjects ages start there.
 * I do somewhat agree with your stance on the random/arbitrariness of picking an age range, but I would say definitions under 35/40 or over 60 are less common than others. Schwarbage (talk) 09:17, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I will add on saying that I wouldn't mind making it more vague given the lack of concrete consensus regarding the age range, but you'd have to bring up age ranges sooner or later and most researchers or ordinary people think of someone who's say... I don't know, 40 years old, is middle-aged. They certainly aren't old, but they aren't really 'young' anymore or young adults. Think 'The 40 Year Old Virgin'. Sorry if it's a bit low brow, but it's pretty easy to see what people in society think of people in their 40s.
 * It doesn't have to be "this is the official consensus" (which I did not add and something like that was always on the article), but you have to have ages be brought up in some format. The old age article has definitions that start as early as 45 (!!!) but also as late as the 70s. Maybe there could be more flexibility here? I like some of your suggestions but we cannot pretend 35-45 is on the fringe of middle age, especially in the minds of most researchers or the average person. 30 is obviously too low, but I don't think 40 is fringe at all for a beginning of middle age. Schwarbage (talk) 09:59, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I will say that the definition that says 31 also thinks early adulthood starts at (randomly) 19 instead of the more conventional 18 or 20 if you're going to go by semantics. I believe this would qualify as a Fringe definition. 31 instead of 30 is also very arbitrary and random and has no reasoning or consensus. It also makes the mistake of going +1 rather than having definitions overlap. Say 40-60 is middle age, and then suddenly old age started at 61. That would be a bit random, no? The Teen category starts at 14 (as in freshman year) and ends at 18. This would normally make sense, but it skips to 19 suddenly instead of overlapping with young adulthood at the age of 18.
 * https://www.nal.usda.gov/human-nutrition-and-food-safety/life-stage-nutrition
 * This is the source the blog post was mentioning.
 * It also makes no mention of 'middle age'. The post added that itself. It goes 'Young Adult', 'Adult', and 'Older Adults'. Incorrectly assuming that there is an 'Adult' stage of adulthood rather than young - > middle age -> old age.
 * It just isn't the most reliable definition here and 'older adults' in this usage clearly doesn't mean the same thing as elderly adults. Past 50 or so adults tend to be more at risk health-wise. It isn't the same as someone who's 60, 65, 70, or 75 years old who's nearing or is well into retirement. Schwarbage (talk) 10:13, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
 * This is what opinion was like in 1976.
 * ''"It should come as no surprise that reasonable observers disagree as to when middle age begins and when it ends. Although some US Census reports define middle age as from 45 -64, we have research which uses 30 as the onset-age and other studies which refer to 70 at the end of middle age."
 * So there was a wide range of opinion on both ends of the period, a 40 year stretch from 30 -70. More crucially:
 * "[Bernice Neugarten], and other researchers, have also provided definitions of middle age that are less tied to chronology and more associated with developmental function.."
 * And in 2020 the sentiment hadn't changed.
 * "Researchers and the public have generally considered midlife to encompass the ages of 40 to 60, plus or minus 10 years, making it a relative approximation. When polled about when midlife begins and ends, people, on average, believed it begins at age 44 (SD=6.15) and ends at age 59 (SD=7.46; Lachman et al., 2015). Such age boundaries though are secondary. More important for defining midlife than chronological age are the unique role constellations that people take on combined with the timing of life events and experiences (Lachman, 2004)."
 * So we've got the same 40-year open target and a focus more on development than chronological age. This makes sense to me since humans are most alike when very young (babies) and very old (elderly). From the ages of 30 -50, people have diverged enough physically and mentally as to place an emphasis more on genetics and environment rather than strictly defined age categories. This is why some 40 year olds still look and feel like they're in their prime, while some at 35 already have their best years physically and emotionally behind them. Some people start families at 35; others much younger.
 * In fact, some recent research has called for placing 30 -45 year olds in a separate category of 'Established Adulthood', distinct from both young and middle adulthood. This age group appears to have been understudied as a separate group and is simply wedged into young and middle adulthood despite differences. Jonathan f1 (talk) 02:19, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I've read about the research. It believe it came from Jeffrey Arnett's research as he coined the terminology. There could be an article called "Established Adulthood", since it was coined by the same guy who came up with "Emerging Adulthood". I believe I added a section about it once on the article, but it could be expanded into its own. I think that would be a good idea. I don't think it or Emerging Adulthood will catch on in the same way, but I think it's worth its own page at least.
 * Youth is usually cut off at the absolute at around age 35. So there's a huge amount of crossover between young adulthood/established adulthood/middle age adulthood. Schwarbage (talk) 05:35, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
 * One of the central problems here is that you seem to be laboring under the impression that there are magic ages that signify different phases of life and that the debate is limited to the chronology of when these magic numbers begin and end. This is a caricature of what researchers are actually debating and a child's picture-book view of aging in general.
 * The other issue, and perhaps the more important one insofar as editing goes, is that the sources do not say what you've been writing here. There is no agreement, for example, on when young adulthood ends.
 * "It has sometimes been referred to as “young adulthood,” but this term has been applied as young as age 18 and as old as age 45 (Arnett, 2015)."
 * And with respect to Established Adulthood:
 * "..we believe that ages 30-45 form a unique developmental period and should be studied as such."(see links upthread).
 * So the whole purpose of creating the "Established Adulthood" category was not to study it as something that overlaps with emerging and middle adulthood, as you say, but as its own separate and distinct phase of adult development.
 * As to the claim that there is a most commonly used definition of middle adulthood that so happens to match your preferred ages, I would simply recommend you search a scholarly database better. I've already posted a number of these but here's some more. Observe some of the language used:
 * "The middle-aged generation typically refers to the segment of the population aged between 45 and 64 years old.."[23]
 * There is dispute on this point and statements like this are a dime a dozen in these papers.
 * At a minimum language like this would need to be adjusted to reflect the weight of the sources:
 * ''"Some definitions start as late as 45, such as those of Merriam-Webster and the Oxford English Dictionary."
 * In a range of ages that more often span from 40 -50, 45 isn't particularly late at all but about average. And a case could be made that 45 is, even if by a slight amount, the more common onset age used in midlife research, although this can't be proven either way. Sources have been presented in this talk that start the period as late as 50. Jonathan f1 (talk) 01:13, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Most of the sources I've read and that you'll find online will cut it off at 35 or 40 in terms of Young Adulthood. Arnett's expression was more referring to the oldest it could range to, not that it's necessarily more common. I was less trying to say it's universally agreed upon and more that generally people mean under 35 or at least under 40 when talking about young adulthood. 18-49 is sometimes used if you really want to stretch that, but either way.
 * "So the whole purpose of creating the "Established Adulthood" category was not to study it as something that overlaps with emerging and middle adulthood, as you say, but as its own separate and distinct phase of adult development."
 * The thing is, is that this category exists almost entirely within Arnett's research. I think it's worthy of its own article, but emerging/established/middle age/old age aren't thought of as the norm. The reason I say there's crossover is because it's a pretty different age theory and his stage of 'Established Adulthood' just happens to cross over what people think of as part of young adulthood + part of middle adulthood
 * "Some definitions start as late as 45, such as those of Merriam-Webster and the Oxford English Dictionary."
 * It could be adjusted to say "start later" and then maybe start as late as age 50. Schwarbage (talk) 15:19, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Right, the whole point was that 45 isn't a late start at all, and about the average onset age used in research papers. Papers that start the period at age 50 are easy to find, and pop up whenever I search the NHS database.
 * The whole dispute, between 40 vs 45, is a nitpick in the first place. But if that's what the argument is, I am not convinced, personally, that 40 -60 is the most commonly used definition over 45 -64/5.
 * And I would stress again that there is probably too much talk of chronology in the article as it is. The dispute over definitions could be covered in one or two sentences and does not even need to appear in the lead. Jonathan f1 (talk) 23:37, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * The whole dispute, between 40 vs 45, is a nitpick in the first place. But if that's what the argument is, I am not convinced, personally, that 40 -60 is the most commonly used definition over 45 -64/5.
 * And I would stress again that there is probably too much talk of chronology in the article as it is. The dispute over definitions could be covered in one or two sentences and does not even need to appear in the lead. Jonathan f1 (talk) 23:37, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Middle age today starts at around 45, not 40
Middle age today starts at around 45, not 40, 40 is too young and most sources at the beginning prove this. User 2601:246:5780:BEC0:1E09:DB29:2965:9D (or IP similars used by them) needs to be held accountable for the vandalism and disruption they're causing (with no counteredit to disprove the fact) and that led to the unproductive, useless and damaging protection of the page more than once in just a few days. 151.82.79.178 (talk) 10:44, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Middle age starts at 56-60
Middle age starts at ages 56-60. This has been and still is the age range and definition of it. 100.34.234.175 (talk) 21:39, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Please cite a reliable source to support that claim. Schazjmd   (talk)  21:47, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * No reliable sources support IP's claim that "middle age starts at 56" -age 50 is the latest age where the period begins, but there is no agreement on exact ages for when midlife begins and ends. People age differently and experience life differently so you're never going to find everyone agreeing to the same age range. It is quite possible for a 30 year old who is, perhaps, losing his hair to experience a "midlife crisis", and it is not at all uncommon to find people in their 40s (and especially early -mid 40s) who are still in their prime of life. Genetics and health affect physical appearance, and career development and the age people have kids (and how old their kids are) influence how they feel about themselves. A 35 -40 year old college professor who's around 18 -22 year olds all day probably doesn't feel like a "young adult", but a 35 -40 year old running for president is basically treated like a kid.
 * Like I said further up the page, chronology is less important than developmental function and the latter should be the focus of the article (age disputes can be covered in a couple of sentences). As it stands right now, the first section of the article claims that "social scientists" agree about certain midlife ages, which is clearly not true. Jonathan f1 (talk) 23:20, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Middle age


text:
Jo Ann Campbell

Jo Ann Campbell (born July 20, 1938 in Jacksonville, Florida) is an American singer who was one of the pioneers of rockabilly.

Campbell began attending music school at the age of four, and won many honors as a drum majorette at Fletcher High School. In 1954 she travelled Europe as a dancer, then moved to New York, where she joined the Johnny Conrad Dancers and made several television appearances on shows such as The Milton Berle Show and The Colgate Comedy Hour.

In 1956, Campbell decided to quit dancing and become a singer. She received her first recording contract with RKO-Point Records in New York and released her debut single "Where Ever You Go" / "I'm Coming Home Late Tonight" with them in 1956. It was unsuccessful and she then signed a recording contract with Eldorado Records after performing at Harlem's Apollo Theater. She wrote and released her second single, "Come On Baby" in 1957. Later that year she released "Wait a Minute", and appeared at the Brooklyn Paramount and on Dick Clark's American Bandstand show.

Campbell appeared in two films: Go, Johnny, Go (1959) and Hey, Let's Twist! (1962), while continuing to release records. In June 1961 she reached No. 41 in the UK Singles Chart with "Motorcycle Michael". She had her biggest hit in August 1962 with "I'm the Girl from Wolverton Mountain", an answer song to Claude King's "Wolverton Mountain". Some pressings showed the title as "(I'm the Girl on) Wolverton Mountain". The song reached No. 38 on the Billboard Hot 100 chart. In April 1963, she followed up with "Mother, Please! (I'd Rather Do It Myself)", a take-off on an Anacin television commercial of the day, but this reached No. 88.

After marrying Atlantic Records record producer Troy Seals in 1964, Campbell left the music industry.

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

title: Jo Ann Campbell


text:
Poison ivy (disambiguation)

Poison ivy is a common name for Toxicodendron radicans, a poisonous plant, and two other poisonous plant species.

Poison ivy or Poison Ivy may also refer to:

Plants

 * Toxicodendron radicans, (eastern poison ivy), a North American shrub or vine
 * Toxicodendron rydbergii (western poison ivy), a North American shrub
 * Smodingium argutum (African poison ivy), a southern African shrub or tree

Film and television

 * La môme vert-de-gris or Poison Ivy, a 1953 French film by Bernard Borderie, based on Peter Cheyney's novel
 * Poison Ivy (film series), an American erotic thriller film series
 * Poison Ivy (1992 film), the first in the series
 * Poison Ivy (1985 film), an American comedy television film
 * "Poison Ivy" (Gossip Girl), a 2007 episode of Gossip Girl
 * "Poison Ivy" (Law & Order), a 1990 episode of Law & Order
 * Ivy Tilsley or Poison Ivy, a character from Coronation Street

Literature

 * Poison Ivy (character), a character of the DC Universe
 * Poison Ivy, a 1937 novel by Peter Cheyney that was adapted as a 1953 French film

Comic books

 * Poison Ivy: Cast Shadows, a 2004 DC Comics one-shot
 * Poison Ivy: Cycle of Life and Death, a 2016 DC Comics series
 * Poison Ivy: Thorns, a 2021 DC Comics graphic novel
 * Poison Ivy (2022 comic book), a 2022 DC Comics series

Music

 * Poison Ivy (musician) (born 1953), American musician and co-founder of the Cramps
 * "Poison Ivy" (song), a 1959 Leiber/Stoller song
 * "Poison Ivy", a Mel London song recorded in 1954 by Willie Mabon
 * "Poison Ivy", a 1963 The Hollies song from The Hollies - The Essential Collection
 * "Poison Ivy", a 1989 Faster Pussycat song from Wake Me When It's Over
 * "Poison Ivy", a 2004 Von Bondies song from Pawn Shoppe Heart
 * "Poison Ivy", a 2004 Rita Lee song from 3001
 * "Poison Ivy", a 2009 Jonas Brothers song from Lines, Vines and Trying Times

Other uses

 * Ivy Lee or Poison Ivy (1877–1934), a pioneer in public relations and an employee of John D. Rockefeller's
 * PoisonIvy (Trojan), a type of computer malware

title: Poison ivy (disambiguation)


text:
Talk:Poison ivy (disambiguation)

Requested move
Move Poison ivy to Poison ivy (disambiguation), and Poison-ivy (plant) to Poison ivy. The plant is far more better known than a cartoon character, song, film, or some person's nickname.

Poison ivy article used to be about the plant till a unilateral page move yesterday. The editor explained that a violet is a disambiguation page, too. But word violet has two widely known meanings, the plant and the colour. Poison ivy is different, it has only one primary, well known meaning.

Also, the Merriam-Webster dictionary, Wordsmyth dictionary, Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary, WordNet dictionary, my English-Finnish dictionary and NCBI know only spelling "poison ivy" without a hyphen. So the plant isn't a poison-ivy. –Hapsiainen 23:45, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

 * Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~

 * Suppport as above. –Hapsiainen (nominator), 23:45, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose - Poison-ivy is the correct term for the plant and differentiates it from ivy - Poison-ivy is NOT a type of ivy. See , below in Discussion...
 * --Chaosfeary 00:03, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

 * Strong Support per above reasons. DreamGuy 17:46, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. I have never seen the hyphenated form outside Wikipedia. We should not be creating our own spelling or punctuation rules. — Knowledge Seeker দ 07:53, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. I disagree with the whole hyphenation business. WormRunner 23:28, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. All other cases of poison ivy take their name from the plant. --Apostrophe 23:34, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Support for Apostrphe's reason and don't consider the hyphen either. E.g., Elephant ears aren't ears or elephants. LuiKhuntek 08:10, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose - for the reasons cited before - MPF 10:52, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Add any additional comments

Poison-ivy is the correct term and Poison-ivy the plant is NOT the only use of the two words
See Talk:Toxicodendron for a previous discussion on this on which it was decided to keep the hyphenation, as per common practice and standard in all botanical works.

Poison-ivy is the correct term for the plant and differentiates it from ivy - Poison-ivy is NOT a type of ivy. It's hypenated to show clearly that it isn't a species of Hedera (Araliaceae), which is otherwise implied by the name 'ivy'. Compare e.g. Poison-oak, Douglas-fir, Osage-orange, etc. Non-botanical dictionaries are not arbiters on this subject and are pretty much irrelevant.

The plant poison-ivy is just one of many with the name, and a lot more people search for Poison Ivy, the female lead of The Cramps or Poison Ivy, the comic book/film/television character, than you might think. As per precedence with Violet I believe this should stay in it's current form... --Chaosfeary 00:30, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Ther is non consensus in Talk:Toxicodendron discussion, you can't appeal to it. NSCB is a scientific website, and it is poison ivy there. It is also only poison ivy in USDA/NRCS Plants Database. I could find poison-ivy only from Funet species list as an alternative spelling. I don't read English scientific plant journals or such, so could you give some examples where the hyphenated form is used? I can't find any guideline on hyphenating plant names in Wikipedia.
 * The general dictionaries above use forms Douglas fir (the species), Osage orange (again species). I dont' know where the hyphenated spelling is used. According to the discussion in Toxicodendron not all scientific literature hyphanates the names. When I read it, I got the idea that hyphenating is the less used plant name form. –Hapsiainen 01:01, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, Western Poison-oak is another example very similar to Poison-ivy (plant) (also with a section explaining the hyphenation)... It is common/standard usage in a botanical context... --Chaosfeary 01:22, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
 * You can't say that A is true because A is true. The Western Poison-oak article just says that the usage is standard, but it gives no further details. Its talk page just refers to Talk:Toxicodendron. You also can't say that something is standard because it is used in Wikipedia. Again, we have no guideline on this.
 * Funet has only poison oak, not poison-oak. But I found poison-oak from NCBI . It also has Douglas-fir and Osage orange. USDA Plants database has Osage orange, Douglas-fir, poison oak. So only Douglas-fir seems to be commonly spelled with the hyphen, not the others. I looked at species, not some plant genus. I am still waiting for other examples. I think that this should be discussed in WikiProject plants. -Hapsiainen 13:36, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I started the discussion there. -Hapsiainen 18:07, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Hedera helix (Araliaceae) is not a true ivy either. The true ivy is Cissus, which is both Greek and Latin for "ivy," in the family Vitaceae.

 * Putting a hyphen in poison ivy is following the US foresters standardization of common tree names, in which trees, like box-elder (which isn't an elder), prickly-ash (which isn't an ash), and Douglas-fir (which isn't a fir) need to take hyphens. The problem is that the US foresters guidelines are not binding on anyone except US foresters. There are no "correct" common names; the only names that are "legally" correct are scientific names (Latin names) under the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature. I vote that "poison ivy" is a far better name than "poison-ivy" because "poison ivy" is the name that is used most commonly, and that's the only correct way of determining a "common name." —Gadelson 23:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Requested move
Move Poison ivy to Poison-ivy. It is not an ivy, and should not be classified with them. - MPF 00:08, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

 * Nobody is classifying it with them by simply referring to its real name. The hyphenated version is a minor version used by a tiny minority of people. We already had this discussion and it was moved and fixed. You would have us undo what we just agreed to do. DreamGuy 09:58, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm pointing out that the said 'agreement' was premature, and that we should return to how it has been - MPF 10:51, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
 * You aren't pointing out, you are claiming, and your claim doesn;t make any sense. Wikipedia naming conventions clearly state that we use the most common name, and in this case that's fary and away "poison ivy" -- the fact that a tiny number of people get bent out of shape thinking that the name is misleading (newsflash, lots of names of plants and animals are misleading, that's just how they are) means that they can change the name of the plant. That's not how things work. As soon as you can point to a reference showing that a majority of dictionaries and references spell it with a hyphen, then you have an argument. Until then you have your personal preference, which doesn;t overrule how the rest of the world spells it. DreamGuy 21:11, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

It looks like I'm coming into this late but I'll weigh in with my own two cents (US). First, there is no such thing as a "correct" common name. Common names by their very nature vary over time and over geographic regions; thus any particular plant species can have any number of different "common" names. (This is why I think all "common" names should redirect to the botanical name, rather than vice-versa.) Second, the hyphenated form is a relatively recent (and in my opinion rather tortured) linguistic invention that is making a valiant attempt at precision but has little or no support in the real world. Like it or not, "ivy" or some unhyphenated variant thereof is used as the common name of many vining plants other than members of the genus Hedera. This is precisely why we use botanical names for precision rather than common or vernacular names. MrDarwin 16:48, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Also late, but I'll agree with MrDarwin... just move it to Toxicodendron radicans if a specific title is desired. SB Johnny 17:23, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Toxicity when ingested?
The article notes it as toxic when ingested, but many folks around here (myself included) eat the stuff in order to desensitize ourselves (works, actually). Is there a source for this claim? Should I be long dead by now? :) SB Johnny 17:25, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

 * Folks 'round here run out in front of slow-moving vehicles so as to develop an immunity to being hit by a bus. Sheesh...  The contact dermatitis that develops after contact with urushiol is a result of an auto-immune response.  For the majority of people who are not immunune to it, sensitivity increases with exposure; it doesn't diminish.  Every year, this myth about eating poisin ivy to build up resistence lands people in the hospital with life-threatening ulcerations of the mouth, throat, stomach & gastro-intestinal tract.  Stick to extracts of capsaicin if you have a burning desire to irritate your G.I. tract. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.32.143.124 (talk) 23:35, 4 April 2007 (UTC).

 * I've got no clue about the subject myself (I prefer lettuce in my salads!), but The Pennsylvania Integrated Pest Management Program lists it as myth #2; IvyOff.com confirms that. This page, however, indicates that it has worked for some people.   Drew 01:54, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

 * There is a small percentage of the population who are not allergic to urushiol. Members of this lucky group could eat it, smoke it, rub it on their skin, etc... without incurring any ill effects.  Unfortunately, this leads to the myth that everyone can do these things and not suffer any harm.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.32.60.124 (talk) 09:46, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

well, as for the fatality of poison-ivy the one and only time i was exposed to it i was in a coma for 2 days, and they had me on benadryl for over 2 months after i came out of the coma. the exposure was on my skin, so no i didn't eat any, but some people are more allergic than others to poison-ivy thus the name 'poison-ivy' since other plants can be mistaken for poison-ivy there is of course the chance that people are mis-identifying the plant and eating a harmless plant that happens to look like poison ivy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kesuki (talk • contribs) 23:37, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Altitude
I live well above 5,000 feet (in Colorado Springs) and we have our share of poison ivy. It grows primarily near streams and other drainage ways.

curing poison ivy rash
crushing then rubbing virginia creeper leaves on poison ivy rash stops the itch almost immediately and kills the rash in a few days

 * The juice of Jewelweed plants is very effective against poison ivy, too, either as a cure or if you suspect you have been exposed. Gather about half a trash bag full, puree them in a blender, and filter the juice to get the pulp out. Soak gauze in the juice and apply to whatever itches. This is fairly well known as folk medicine; perhaps someone less lazy than me can find a citation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.92.68.103 (talk) 01:54, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Removing link to Poison Oak article
It appears that the topic "Poison Oak" now links to "Toxicodendron" and is therefore any link is an artifact worthy of removal. -APM

Latin name and leaf margins
First, is there a reason the article doesn't mention the name Rhus radicans? Has it fallen out of favor among taxonomists or something? Second, the leaves in the photo, and to an even greater extent the leaves in the drawing on the commons, seem oddly un-serrated to me. I don't think I've ever seen poison ivy like that; in fact, I'm used to identifying poison ivy by the large, asymmetrical serrations on the two side leaflets. Is there a smooth-margin variety that's more common in some other part of the world (I'm in Tennessee)? --Allen 04:48, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

 * Yes and yes. It was moved from Rhus to Toxicodendron quite a few years ago, and there are quite a few leaf shapes (unfortunately). SB_Johnny  | talk 23:04, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

 * Thanks. But since we mention one old Rhus name, is it okay if I add the other as well?  Also, why does Talk:Poison ivy redirect to Talk:Poison ivy (disambiguation)?  Okay if I move it back to Talk:Poison ivy?  --Allen 05:23, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

 * Rhus radicans is just as commonly found in the literature as Rhus toxicodendron and should therefore be mentioned at the beginning of the entry. Both names are clearly incorrect, as recent molecular evidence has shown that the genus Toxicodendron is not closely related to the genus Rhus within the family Anacardiaceae. See the dissertation work of Susan Pell. —Gadelson 23:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

This poison ivy lookalike has been left out
Young box-elder saplings are almost indistinguishable from poison ivy. They are small and have three leaves, and they are quite numerous at least in the middle of the U.S., where poison ivy is plentiful. The old saying "leaves of three, let it be" scared me in the woods for most of my life even when it wasn't ivy. T'would be nice to be able to know the difference. But I digress. I vote an addition of box elder for a lookalike.
 * Almost everything with three leaflets (and some without) seems to look like poison ivy to someone. I would at least ask that if you add box-elder that you describe clearly how it differs from poison ivy.  I'm not sure what to do with this list of lookalikes in general (is it supposed to be a really long list, or just a list of the most common plants which look similar, or a list of the plants which are most similar, or what?). Kingdon 16:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Check out the photos here: www.savorlife.com/special_pages/g_poisonivy.htm I'm convinced nobody is aware of this lookalike because it's so close to the real thing. I'll have to do some research on how to tell the difference before considering adding it to the article. Sorry, too lazy to login with my username.

Added section on box elder
This was always an annoyance of mine, as box elder is quite common in many of the woods that poison ivy is, and it looks much more like PI than any other lookalike in my opinion. Added a picture of the two next to each other. I finally have a foolproof way of telling the difference, which is now in the article. If someone can align the picture better than I did, you're free to try. Hammiesink
 * Looks good. I cleaned up some wording, but I don't know how to fix the picture/alignment problems. Also, you linked to Box elder which is a disambiguation page; one should link to (in this case) Acer negundo instead. Kingdon 15:41, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Cool! Thanks! Actually, if you can, change the wording to reflect the fact that adult Box Elder has five leaves, and young saplings CAN have three, although they can also have five. In other words, five leaves is the most common. Hammiesink
 * Well, feel free to suggest wording but I have revised the wording to be more vague (the Acer negundo article is really the place to get into details). Seems to me I've seen lots of 3-leaflet box elder (probably of sapling size), but for wikipedia my personal experience isn't very relevant and I'd need to find verifiable sources, and it doesn't seem necessary to get into too many details here. Kingdon 16:35, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Note on box elder - poison ivy discussion
I came to this site on August 10th, because my wife was doing some yardwork that she wanted help with. I saw a plant, and told her from my boy scout days: "leaves of three, let it be" and she didnt believe me. So I went to Wikipedia with a sample of said plant, and found that it exactly matched what Wikipedia said was a box elder, like what is in this picture. It had opposing leaves exactly coming off the trunk evenly on both sides. It was a mirror image, looking nothing like the poison ivy on the right side of this picture. So, with my newly found knowledge, my wife and I dove in and cleaned out LOTS of brush and loaded my truck and trailer with our overgrown "box elder" plant. That was many long days ago, and I am still covered from head to toe with blisters from our box elder episode. Ive made several trips to the doctor and gotten lots of steroid shots and I'm still quite miserable.

So, with that, I think the whole "poison ivy" reference is flawed, in that I believe that box elder has leaves that alternate from its trunk and the poison ivy has parallel stemming leaves - in opposition to statements made on this page. This picture I believe is also labeled backwards, the poison ivy is on the left and the box elder is on the right.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_talk:Boxelder_poisonivy.jpg" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Edwright12345 (talk • contribs) 17:25, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

poison ivy response details
"Here's how the poison ivy response occurs. Urushiol makes its way down through the skin, where it is metabolized, or broken down. Immune cells called T lymphocytes (or T-cells) recognize the urushiol derivatives as a foreign substance, or antigen. They send out inflammatory signals called cytokines, which bring in white blood cells. Under orders from the cytokines, these white blood cells turn into macrophages. The macrophages eat foreign substances, but in doing so they also damage normal tissue, resulting in the skin inflammation that occurs with poison ivy." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.87.202.67 (talk) 18:13, 26 April 2007 (UTC).

steroids
"Smearing on hydrocortisone... or other topical corticosteroids, will help suppress the itching and give temporary relief, but does little to hasten the drying up of the rash. Similarly, taking an oral antihistamine, such as benadryl, can help with the itching quite a bit, although it does not speed up resolution of the rash. Taking benadryl at nighttime will make most people drowsy and help them sleep through the night without itching. Again, don't use benadryl cream or spray topically, because this can cause its own reaction...

"In severe cases of poison ivy, poison oak, or poison sumac it is a good idea to see a doctor. Sometimes large blisters need to be drained, and sometimes an oral steroid such as prednisone may be useful. Systemic steroids produce rapid resolution of both the itching and the rash. If they are needed, a gradually tapering dosage over about 12 days should be given. The dosage needs to be tapered to avoid side effects after discontinuing use, and the entire course should be taken since stopping earlier may result in a rebound rash as bad as the original."

It would be helpful to have more information about the pros and cons of treating a skin reaction site with steroid creams. The above source says that topical steroids only help with the itch. (It seems like maybe the best method of immediate itch relief is a hot shower on the place that itches.)-69.87.202.67 18:22, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Smoking Poison Ivy
Has anyone actually SMOKED Poison Ivy themselves? If so why? JimJacobs 58.168.105.11 08:48, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

 * Nah that's crazy 174.231.208.54 (talk) 21:17, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

That would be extremely stupid. When people breathe the smoke by accident from brush fires, they end up in the hospital!-69.87.200.24 23:23, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Palm less sensitive
It seems like palms are less likely to get poison ivy than the back of the hand or other parts of the arm. Why?-69.87.200.24 23:23, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

The palm has a layer of callused skin that does not have blood vessels or nerves.68.117.51.230 06:35, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

If a reaction occurs, eating mangos can magnify the allergic reaction and, for some, lead to the need for medical attention.[4]
This does not look right, the reference does not say anything about eating the fruit and contact with poison ivy. But says that this person had developed a reaction to poison ivy in the past and when he got some of the juice from the wall of the mango fruit on his skin he had another reaction. The same type of chemicals are in mangos as in poison ivy. The sentence says if you eat mangos AND have contact with poison ivy...i do not know if this is true or not but the reference does not help answer the question. Hardyplants 08:54, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

some parts written like a 'how-to'
Some parts of this article are written the tone of a 'how-to'. Just one example is "you should cleanse exposed areas...". The same infomation can be kept, but not written in a form that reads like 'instructions'; that's just not the way we do it here. ike9898 14:55, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I'm not sure all that information should be kept, but we should at least clean up the language as you suggest. Kingdon 16:12, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I would suggest moving the "how-to" info to Wikibooks, if it isn't already there, then link to that from this article (perhaps make it a prominent link, I'm sure I'm not the only one who has looked to Wikipedia for that info). -- Gyrofrog (talk) 16:21, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikibooks might be an option. For more background see "Textbooks and annotated texts" at WP:NOT. Kingdon 16:32, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Here's one article already on Wikibooks. Didn't the "how-to" in the article come from the CDC? If so, it might be in the public domain, and a good candidate for Wikibooks? -- Gyrofrog (talk) 16:38, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Hot water treatment
A very effective method for relieving the itching of the rash is to apply very hot water to the area, because heat releases the histamine in the skin (which causes itching), so it basically itches so much that it feels like scratching; once the itching subsides, then the histamine is depleted and you won't itch for hours. If someone wants to add something like this to the article, it might be helpful Strumphs 14:01, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

 * I wouldn't put it here, but it might belong at Urushiol-induced contact dermatitis. It seems to me that is the best place to write about the medical aspects.  If we try to include much of this in plant articles, we'll get a hopeless set of partial articles at poison oak, toxicodendron, and other places.  As for the hot water, my personal experience is that the hot water helps but to add it to wikipedia we need sources.  Maybe it has been published in a medical journal or some place like that. Kingdon 14:56, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 16:30, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Poison Ivy Remote Administration Tool
What about the "Poison Ivy" Remote Administration Tool / Trojan? (see: www.poisonivy-rat.com ) This is one oft the most often used trojans out there.217.84.41.129 (talk) 11:47, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Requested move 15 October 2020

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Poison ivy (disambiguation) → Poison ivy – Per the previous move discussion at Talk:Toxicodendron_radicans, there are multiple plants that can be called poison ivy. If WP:COMMONNAME won't work because "poison ivy" can refer to multiple species, it wouldn't make sense then to have "Poison ivy" redirect to a single species (Toxicodendron radicans). Therefore, move per WP:NOPRIMARYTOPIC.  Bait30  Talk 2 me pls? 03:50, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

 * Oppose - I agree redirecting to a single species is not the best long-term solution, but I'd much rather see a WP:BROADCONCEPT article be created at poison ivy. Until that's done, then redirecting to that one species is at least moderately useful. -- Netoholic @ 04:21, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't disagree with that idea. But quite frankly, I do not know enough about plants to actually write the article, so I figured this would be the best solution until someone decides to make the broad concept article.  Bait30   Talk 2 me pls? 07:01, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree that a broad concept article would be the ideal solution. Most of the other articles listed on the disambiguation page are entertainment/pop culture topics that do not really have the same "long-term usage" as the plants. Zzyzx11 (talk) 06:57, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support until a broad concept article is made.--Ortizesp (talk) 13:39, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Question: not sure I understand this because, first of all, this request is malformed since the target new page title already has content and is therefore ineligible unless it is to be deleted or moved elsewhere. And secondly, that content already seems to qualify as more of a "broad concept" article. So what exactly is the beef?  P.I. Ellsworth   ed.  put'r there 20:12, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * You can close this. "Poison ivy" used to redirect to Toxicodendron radicans. I previously suggested moving Toxicodendron radicans to the "Poison ivy" name, but agreed that "Poison ivy" should be its own broad concept page. I was too lazy to make a broad concept page and I didn't know if anyone would actually follow through with it, so I made this discussion. However, an editor did end up making the broad concept so this move request is moot.  Bait30   Talk 2 me pls? 07:19, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay,, sounds good, and thank you!  P.I. Ellsworth   ed.  put'r there 08:19, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

confusing structure regarding the plants
There seems to be an article for Poison Ivy which includes 3 species (2 of which have their own articles): https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poison_ivy and it is linked as the main use on this disambiguation page; that article is not linked to any page in other languages.

Then in the plants section of this page it lists one of those 3 speacies from the first article: Toxicodendron rydbergii https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toxicodendron_rydbergii but not to the other ones (as well as linking to an taxonomically unrelated plant that bears a similar name)

Meanwhile, the other species with its own page (Toxicodenron radicans https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toxicodendron_radicans) and most commonly associated with the name is not listed on this disambiguation page, even tough it is linked to the entry for posion ivy in most other languages, and that article doesn't link back to either the general poison ivy article or to this disambiguation page.

I don't really see the point for the general poison ivy article, particularly considering that this disambiguation page can just link to all other plants known by that name under the plants section.

If however, people feel strongly about keeping the general poison ivy article, I'd suggest making sure that the following things are done:

-link to all of the plant species known by that name under the plants header on this disambiguation

-make sure to link either to the general poison ivy article or to this disambiguation page from each of the articles about plants commonly known by that name

-link articles from other languages which are not specific to just one of the species but to poison ivy in general to the general poison ivy article instead of to one of the specific species. 217.105.18.171 (talk) 15:39, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Poison ivy (disambiguation)


text:
Victor Starffin

Viktor Starukhin (Виктор Константинович Старухин, 1 May 1916 – 12 January 1957), nicknamed "the blue-eyed Japanese" (青い目の日本人), or more commonly known as Victor Starffin, was a Japanese baseball player. While playing in Japan, he became the first professional pitcher in Japan to win 300 games. With 83 career shutouts, he ranks number one all-time in Japanese professional baseball.

Early years
Viktor Starukhin (also known as Victor Starffin) was born in 1916 in Nizhny Tagil, in the Urals region of what was then the Russian Empire, but after the Russian Revolution he moved with his family initially to Harbin, Manchuria, then eventually settling in Asahikawa, Hokkaidō, where he attended Asahikawa Higashi High School. Initially bullied due to him not being Japanese, Starukhin eventually studied the language well, and was also very athletic, so much so that he would still win a 100-meter dash, even if his classmates got a 20 meter head start. This had been partly due to his size. Specifically, he stood at 6 feet (180cm) by the age of 11. He was also good at baseball, having discovered the sport after moving to Japan. His tall height mixed well with baseball, as his skill allowed him to use it as a way to connect and make friends with his classmates, and it also allowed him to distance himself from the issue of his family issues of his father, Konstantine Starukhin, resorting to heavy alcohol drinking.

Initially, Starukhin was scouted by Koyo Gakuin High School in Nishinomiya, but other schools complained about it, as they weren't on the idea of a foreigner pitching for them, so he joined Asahikawa Higashi's baseball team, helping them to 2 consecutive finals of the Hokkaido tournament of the Japanese High School Baseball Championship, failing both times to qualify for Summer Koshien.

Starukhin wanted to get into Waseda University, but he was scouted by Matsutaro Shoriki in the autumn of 1934 as a member of the national baseball team for an exhibition game against the United States. At that time, the Ministry of Education had a regulation stating that high school baseball players who played professionally forfeited their eligibility to enter higher education, so Starukhin was reluctant to turn pro. However, he and his family had entered Japan on transit visas, and his father, Konstantin Starukhin, was in jail awaiting trial on charges of involuntary manslaughter, as he had murdered a co-worker of his wife due to political indifferences between both parties, and because of that, he was able to claim he killed her due to him thinking she was a spy sent by the Soviet government to monitor Russian refugees in Hokkaido. Shoriki effectively blackmailed Starukhin, stating that if Starukhin refused to play professionally, Shoriki would use his connections with the Yomiuri Shimbun to publicise the details of Konstantin Starukhin's case, therefore deporting him and his mother back to Russia, and likely to be arrested by the NKVD due to his father's political alignment.

Tōkyō Kyojingun/Yomiuri Giants
Starukhin was signed by the Tōkyō Kyojingun (now the Yomiuri Giants), outside the draft, in 1936, and played for them until 1944. He was one of the premier pitchers in the Japanese baseball "dead-ball era" (pre-1945), when many of Japan's best players were serving in the Imperial Japanese Army. He won two MVP awards and a Best Nine award, and won at least 26 games in six different years, winning a league record 42 games in 1939. He followed his record-setting 1939 performance with another 38 wins in 1940. He also became the first foreign player in NPB history to throw a no-hitter, doing so against the Korakuen Eagles on July 3, 1937.

World War II
In 1940, as xenophobia increased in Japan, Starukhin was forced to change his name to Suda Hiroshi. Later, during World War II, wartime paranoia resulted in Starukhin being placed in a detention camp at Karuizawa with diplomats and other foreign residents.

Post-war career
After a brief period working as an interpreter for the U.S. Occupation authorities (SCAP), Starukhin returned to professional baseball in 1946, but chose not to return to the Giants, instead signing a contract with a new team, the Pacific Baseball Club, owned by Komajiro Tamura. Pacific's contracts with several famous players, including Starukhin, led to a serious conflict, and Pacific was forced to forfeit four games. However, this decision ultimately resulted in Starukhin's old team the Giants losing the first Japanese championship after World War II, as one of Pacific's forfeited games had been a loss to Great Ring (now the Fukuoka SoftBank Hawks): the change from a loss to a win gave Great Ring the title over the Giants.

Starukhin stayed with Pacific in 1947, which became known as the Taiyo Robins. In 1948 he moved to Tamura's other team, the Kinsei/Daiei Stars, staying with that franchise through 1953 (although Tamura sold the team to Daiei Film after the 1948 season). Starukhin finally signed with the Takahashi/Tombow Unions (a forerunner of the Chiba Lotte Marines) in 1954–55. In 1955, his last season, he became the first career 300-game winner in Japanese professional baseball. Originally, it was thought that Starukhin recorded his 300th win against the Kintetsu Pearls at Kawasaki Stadium on July 28, 1955. However, due to NPB rules on pitcher wins pre-war, it was only considered his 298th. He would get his actual 300th win on the 9th of September against his former Daiei Stars team at Nishinokyogoku Stadium in Kyoto City. When asked what he wanted to do next, Starukhin stated he wanted to get 2,000 career strikeouts and 100 shutouts before ending his baseball career. He never got to do so, due to him being forced to retire as after a 7-21 record in 1955, he was cut from the Unions and no other team wanted to sign him, despite him stating he was willing to also pitch for free. He retired in 1955 with a career record of 303 wins and 176 losses.

Retirement
After retirement, he became an actor and presenter of radio programs.

Death
In 1957, Starukhin was killed in a traffic accident when the car he was driving was hit by a tram on the Tōkyū Tamagawa Line (now replaced by the Tōkyū Den-en-toshi Line) in Setagaya, Tokyo on his way to a high school reunion with his classmates from Asahikawa Higashi High School. The exact circumstances of the incident are debated to this day, with speculation ranging from a simple accident to suicide or drunk driving.

Starukhin is buried in Tama Cemetery in Tokyo. He was the first player to be honored in a funeral where former teammates of his shared stories of his time playing with them.

Tributes
In 1960, he became the first foreigner elected to the Japanese Baseball Hall of Fame.

Asahikawa City has nicknamed its municipal baseball stadium, as Asahikawa Starffin Stadium, since 1984.

Personal life
Starukhin spoke fluent Japanese and was said to be "more Japanese than Japanese" with respect for his in-laws, but he was worried that his friends would never cross the line with the labels "foreigner" and "exile". It was said to be the case. Therefore, he went to the Orthodox church "Nikolai-do" in Ochanomizu (neighborhood in Tokyo) where other Russians emigrants gathered. He searched for friends and even found a bride.

Family
In 1939 Starukhin married a Russian emigrant, Elena. In 1941, their first-born son was born. After staying in the Karuizawa camp, Elena filed for divorce and left with Bolovyov for the United States, leaving her seven-year-old son Starukhina.

The second wife was a Japanese woman Kunie in 1950, whom they met on Christmas at the Russian Club in Tokyo in 1948. She took care of his son, and they had two daughters. After the death of her husband, Kunie worked several jobs to support her family.

Professional Statistics
*Bold = lead league

title: Victor Starffin


text:
User talk:Mariocki

To Horizontal Line or not to Horizontal Line
Hi,

why did you remove the horizontal lines from Robert Trujillo article ? It looks better with them.

--PET 03:28, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

 * Because horizontal lines should be used to separate distinct meanings of a term within an article and in this case there is only one meaning. Different sections about the same meaning should use section headers. For example look at Ozzy Osbournes page, it has horizontal lines because the article has been split into sections. Also see -- Mariocki TALK 13:46, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Eurosport Logo.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Eurosport Logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 17:36, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:59, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:Mariocki


text:
Talk:South of Scotland (Scottish Parliament electoral region)

Untitled
i live in this region and i recently met some of the msps on a trip to the scottish parliament with my school. elaine murray is our constituency msp so she organised the trip for us and for us to meet up with alastair morgan, chris ballance and david mundell. of the 4 msps i have to say that david mundell impressed me the most. i think that when the next scottish election comes round i will vote for david mundell on ballot1 and lib dem on ballot2. what does everyone else think of our msps?

Election results
Additional member results need context in terms of constituency results, which help to determine how additional member seats are allocated. Laurel Bush 10:43, 11 November 2005 (UTC).

Map
Is there going to me a map prducted by anybody for this constituency? --Achmelvic 22:08, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


text:
Aura River (Finland)

The Aura River (Finnish Aurajoki; Swedish Aura å) is a river in south-western Finland. It originates in Oripää, and it flows through Pöytyä, Aura and Lieto before discharging into the Archipelago Sea in the middle of the city of Turku. The waters of the Aura river are brown. The total length of the river is about 70 km, and it contains eleven rapids, the biggest of which is Nautelankoski at Lieto. The reserve tap water for Turku Region is drawn from the Aura, the city's secondary waterworks being situated by the Halinen rapids.

The word "Aura" appears to come from an archaic Swedish word for waterway (aathra, which is still current in the form ådra), but in Finnish it translates as "plough," a name the river lives up to. Situated in an agricultural zone, it is made turbid by surface runoff from nearby farms with eutrophication as the biggest threat. Its condition has been improving since the 1970s and the Aura river is now clean enough to support salmon.

The banks of the river have been inhabited for at least 6,000 years. The area is notable for the cultural heritage in Finland. The archdiocese of Finland has been situated near the river since the thirteenth century.

title: Aura River (Finland)


text:
Otto Schoetensack

Otto Karl Friedrich Schoetensack (12 July 1850 in Stendal – 23 December 1912 in Ospedaletti) was a German industrialist and later professor of anthropology, having retired from the chemical firm which he had founded. During a 1908 archeological dig, he oversaw the worker Daniel Hartmann who found the lower jaw of a hominid, the oldest human fossil then known, which Schoetensack later described formally as Homo heidelbergensis.

Publications

 * "Der Unterkiefer des Homo heidelbergensis aus den Sanden von Mauer bei Heidelberg" (The lower jaw of the Homo heidelbergensis out of the sands of Mauer near Heidelberg). 1908. Leipzig: Wilhelm Engelmann.

title: Otto Schoetensack


text:
Talk:Dionigi Tettamanzi

Untitled
I'm going to park the original text of this article here while I rewrite what is presented on the main page:

 * Ordained a priest in 1957 in Milan by its then Archbishop, the future Pope Paul VI, he held various pastoral and teaching assignments until he was named Archbishop of Ancona in 1989 and was consecrated a bishop. Only two years later he resigned from this archdiocese on being chosen as secretary-general of the Italian Episcopal Conference. In 1995 he became Archbishop of Genoa and the Conference's Vice President and was elevated to Cardinal in the consistory of 1998.

 * The book Passing the Keys: Modern Cardinals, Conclaves, and the Election of the Next Pope (ISBN 1568331304) by Francis A. Burkle-Young identified Tettamanzi as one of a handful of Papabile cardinals, possible successors to Pope John Paul II. Developments following the book's 1999 publication, including the death of one of the other candidates and the retirement of others, led Young to regard Tettamanzi as the likeliest choice. Others have also speculated on his papal chances, though this did not prevent new Cardinal Keith O'Brien of Scotland from jokingly referring to Tettamanzi in 2003 as a "wee fat guy", being amused by the prospect of Tettamanzi as Pope. In 2005 after the death of John Paul II his name was still being quoted by some bookmakers as a favourite to be the next Pope.

The information above will be returned after I am finished. --Gerald Farinas 14:02, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Put into brackets the name of Joseph Ratzinger. Deltadirac 17:15, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

 * It not correct to say that on the 20 March 2008 Tettamanzi announced that the Holy See had approved an innovative new Ambrosian Lectionary.... The Archbishop of Milan is the Head of the Ambrosian Rite: so the steps of the New Lectionary have been: Tettamanzi approved the texts, the Holy See confirmed them (latin: recognitio), and the 20 March Tettamanzi issued the Lectionary. This is extremely clear from the official decree of issue (available in Italian on the official site of the Milan Dioceses). And we cannot say this Lectionary to be innovative, because it is based on the traditional Ambrosian Lectionary, that has been abolished after the Council Vatican II to use the Roman Lectionary.
 * I suggest: On the 20 March 2008 Tettamanzi issued the New Ambrosian Lectionary, previously confirmed by the Holy See, that supersedes the 1976 experimental edition. A ntv (talk) 21:01, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Dionigi Tettamanzi. 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/20110523233145/http://www.lastampa.it/_web/CMSTP/tmplrubriche/giornalisti/grubrica.asp?ID_blog=196&ID_articolo=338&ID_sezione=396&sezione= to http://www.lastampa.it/_web/CMSTP/tmplrubriche/giornalisti/grubrica.asp?ID_blog=196&ID_articolo=338&ID_sezione=396&sezione=

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) 13:01, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

title: Talk:Dionigi Tettamanzi


text:
John Kiffmeyer

John Kiffmeyer (born July 11, 1969), known professionally as Al Sobrante, is an American cinematographer and retired musician and songwriter. He is the former drummer for the punk rock band Green Day, leaving in 1990 and replaced by Tré Cool. His stage name is a reference to his hometown, El Sobrante.

Biography
John Kiffmeyer was born in El Sobrante, California on July 11, 1969. His first exposure in the punk scene was as the drummer of the band Isocracy. The group was popular in the East Bay, and mainstays at the club 924 Gilman Street. He chose his stage name Al Sobrante for an evident pun on his birthplace.

Kiffmeyer is most well known for his time in Green Day; after Isocracy broke up, he joined Mike Dirnt and Billie Joe Armstrong in 1987 to replace original drummer Raj Punjabi and join Sweet Children, which was later renamed Green Day. Because of his experience and knowledge of the underground community, Kiffmeyer was able to get the young band on its feet by placing calls to friends, among them prominent figure of the East Bay Larry Livermore. The first few performances took place at Contra Costa College, where Kiffmeyer was a journalism student. On the strength of an early performance, Livermore vowed to release a Green Day record on his Lookout! Records. The group's first full-length effort, 1990 album 39/Smooth, would feature a Kiffmeyer original, "I Was There", which documented the band at that place in time. Being a fan of Ozzy Osbourne, he inspired the mini-covers of some famous songs, such as "I Don't Know" by Osbourne and "Sweet Home Alabama" by Lynyrd Skynyrd during the bridge of "Disappearing Boy", a practice that is still carried out today.

In 1990, he attended college at California State Polytechnic University, Humboldt in Arcata, California. While Kiffmeyer was attending college, Green Day members Billie Joe Armstrong and Mike Dirnt accepted drummer Tré Cool into the band, which Kiffmeyer "graciously accepted". In 1991, he worked as executive producer for the Green Day album Kerplunk, released that year. Kiffmeyer later joined the band The Ne'er Do Wells, leaving abruptly in 1994. Following a stint with punk band The Ritalins, he became manager of The Shruggs until their split. In 1998 he was the executive producer of The Great Lost Trouble Makers Album by The Troublemakers, a garage rock band from Sacramento, California.

He now lives in San Francisco, California and is married to experimental filmmaker and San Francisco State University professor Greta Snider. He works as a Director of Photography, specializing in green screen and producing mainly commercial work.

On April 16, 2015, Kiffmeyer joined Billie Joe Armstrong and Mike Dirnt on stage during a Green Day concert at The House of Blues in Cleveland, Ohio, where the trio performed as Sweet Children and played songs that they had not performed since the 1990s, including "Sweet Children", "Green Day", "I Was There", "Don't Leave Me" and "Dry Ice".

With Isocracy

 * El Sob Demo (1987)
 * Bedtime For Isocracy (1988)

Studio albums

 * 39/Smooth (1990)

Other releases

 * 1,000 Hours (EP, 1989)
 * Slappy (EP, 1990)
 * Sweet Children (EP, 1990)
 * 1,039/Smoothed Out Slappy Hours (1991)

With The Ne'er Do Wells

 * Hello, It Is I, Thee Intolerable Bastard, Child Genius (1993)

Other appearances

 * Turn It Around! (1987 compilation album) ("Confederate Flags")
 * The Big One (1991 compilation album) ("I Want To Be Alone")

Production discography

 * Green Day – Kerplunk (1991) as Executive Producer
 * Screeching Weasel – My Brain Hurts (1991)
 * The Trouble Makers – The Great Lost Trouble Makers Album (1998)

title: John Kiffmeyer


text:
Jon Benjamin

Jon Benjamin may refer to:

 * Jon Benjamin (Jewish leader) (born 1964), British lawyer, former chief executive of the Board of Deputies of British Jews
 * Jon Benjamin (diplomat) (born 1963), British diplomat
 * H. Jon Benjamin (born 1966), American actor and comedian

title: Jon Benjamin