text:
Talk:Sam and Max Hit the Road

Article name
If no-one has any arguments, I'll go ahead and change the name of the article into Sam & Max Hit the Road as it seems to me to be the most common and correct title for the game. -- Quoth 02:17, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

title: Talk:Sam and Max Hit the Road


text:
User:SteveC02

Steve here.

Just stumbled across, and love the idea of the WikiProject_Melbourne

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

title: User:SteveC02


text:
Talk:Teach the Controversy/Archive 2

Other articles to link to
I feel that in the "See also" section, there should be links to the evolution and evolutionary creationism articles. This would help give the reader the two opposing views, Creationism and evolution, and two more moederate views, Intelligent Design and Evolutionary Creationism. Also, one may argue that there is POV by only having Inteligent Design without any evolution links in the "See also" section. User: Mred64

Proposal for Balanced Intro
The Teach the Controversy movement in the United States proposes an education policy for American public schools that entails presenting to students the scientific evidence for and against evolution, as well as the on-going debates within the scientific community, and then encouraging students to evaluate the evidence and controversies themselves. Proponents believe that there is evidence against evolution that is not taught in schools and seek political and legal intervention to ensure that it is, and that students are encouraged to evaluate it critically.

Opponents believe that this conflicts with the position of mainstream science. They also believe that the debate thus revolves around the nature of the poltical campaign designed to establish the phrase "teach the evidence" as being equivalent to "teach the controversy". The position of mainstream science as expressed by the National Association of Biology Teachers in their statement on teaching evolution:

 * "As stated in The American Biology Teacher by the eminent scientist Theodosius Dobzhansky (1973), 'Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.' This often-quoted declaration accurately reflects the central, unifying role of evolution in biology. . . . Experimentation, logical analysis, and evidence-based revision are procedures that clearly differentiate and separate science from other ways of knowing. Explanations or ways of knowing that invoke non-naturalistic or supernatural events or beings, whether called 'creation science,' 'scientific creationism,' 'intelligent design theory,' 'young earth theory,' or similar designations, are outside the realm of science and not part of a valid science curriculum."

Proponents respond by noting that they only want to teach scientific evidence and have students critically evaluate on-going debates in the scientific community. They note that some of the problems that were acknowledged by Charles Darwin in The Origin of Species,  are still actively debated in the current scientific literature.    The proposed policy, including issues to be analyzed by students can also be found in Ohio's Model Lesson Plan and the peer-reviewed scientific literature to which it makes reference.

--VorpalBlade 19:38, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The proposed intro appears overly sympathetic the TTC POV and lacks the critical balance that is present in the current intro. Of particular note it omits any mention of the specifc nature of the controversy surrounding the TTC agenda, as found in this sentence from the current intro: The current debate revolves around the intentions and methods of the "teach the controversy" movement in their attempt to secure a change in current educational policy. There's way too many outside links, and several seem to be less than accurate/neutral at first glance.

Considering this, I can not say it is an improvement over what is up now. FeloniousMonk 19:50, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * in moving toward resolution, would you be so kind as to list your specific issues with the intro, provide alternatives, and explain why your alternative is more in line with npov guidelines than the present one? Ungtss 19:58, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * List my specific issues with the proposed intro? Um, I just did. As for proposing an alternative, as I said, the current one is better, and I'm uncertain I could improve on it at this time. FeloniousMonk 20:09, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

current intro
<>
 * this is unacceptably vague. the first sentence should identify exactly what that policy is.  the alternative does so, and is therefore superior.

<>
 * this is in his version.

<<''This position conflicts with that of mainstream scientists and educators. They believe that the debate revolves around the nature of the poltical campaign designed to establish the phrase "teach the evidence" as being equivalent to "teach the controversy". The position of the mainstream science is expressed by the National Association of Biology Teachers in their statement on teaching evolution:''>>
 * this is in his version.

<<''"As stated in The American Biology Teacher by the eminent scientist Theodosius Dobzhansky (1973), 'Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.' This often-quoted declaration accurately reflects the central, unifying role of evolution in biology. . . . Experimentation, logical analysis, and evidence-based revision are procedures that clearly differentiate and separate science from other ways of knowing. Explanations or ways of knowing that invoke non-naturalistic or supernatural events or beings, whether called 'creation science,' 'scientific creationism,' 'intelligent design theory,' 'young earth theory,' or similar designations, are outside the realm of science and not part of a valid science curriculum."[1] (http://www.nabt.org/sub/position_statements/evolution.asp) The current debate revolves around the intentions and methods of the "teach the controversy" movement in their attempt to secure a change in current educational policy.''>>
 * this is in his version.

absent from the intro is any statement in support of the substance of the ID position. since there is information against this view, there should be a brief statement in support of it. the mainpage version lacks one. the alternative has it. the alternate is therefore superior.

have at it, boys. Ungtss 20:17, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Congratulations! You've wriggled out, yet again, of responding to my points — responses that would have had to be clear and simple, rather than involving the mass of icnhoate verbiage with which you've filled this page.  You see, good faith is something that should be assumed in the absence of any reason not to.  Unfortunately you and VorpalBlade have provided so much reason not to make that assumption, that to make it now wouldn't be generous, it would be deeply stupid.
 * i will no longer be drawn. Ungtss 20:55, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * As I've failed to draw you into answering my perfectly straightforward questions so far, you hardly surprise me. Mel Etitis ([[User talk:Mel Etitis| Μελ

Ετητης )]] 21:05, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * i will no longer be drawn. Ungtss 21:18, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * As to your claim here, it doesn't stand up: "since there is information against this view, there should be a brief statement in support of it". Wikipedia is in the business of providing information; it's not in the business of making statements in support. Mel Etitis  ( Μελ Ετητης ) 20:45, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is in the business of providing information. attributed views pro and con are both appropriate and essential on controversial topics.  currently, the intro you're supporting provides only information "con."  that is pov by definition.  the deliberate exclusion of the views of those about whom the article is written is sheer censorship.  Ungtss 20:55, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

So write the summary, and put your suggestion here. then we'll have something clear and concrete to talk about. If you'd simply like one of the pre-existing summaries, put that here, and it can serve the same purpose. Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 21:05, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

proposal
The Teach the Controversy movement in the United States proposes an education policy for American public schools that entails presenting students with what ththe movement believes to be scientific evidence for and against evolution, as well as the continuing debates within the scientific community, and then encouraging students to evaluate the evidence and controversies themselves. Proponents believe that there is evidence against evolution that is not taught in schools, and seek political and legal intervention to ensure that it is taught, and that students are encouraged to evaluate it critically.

Opponents believe that such a policy is inappropriate, because there is in fact no substantive controversy, as the scientific consensus is that evolution is a fact evidenced beyond dispute. They also believe that the debate thus revolves around the nature of the political campaign designed to establish the phrase "teach the evidence" as being equivalent to "teach the controversy". The position of mainstream science, as expressed by the National Association of Biology Teachers in their statement on teaching evolution, is:

 * "As stated in The American Biology Teacher by the eminent scientist Theodosius Dobzhansky (1973), 'Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.' This often-quoted declaration accurately reflects the central, unifying role of evolution in biology. [...] Experimentation, logical analysis, and evidence-based revision are procedures that clearly differentiate and separate science from other ways of knowing. Explanations or ways of knowing that invoke non-naturalistic or supernatural events or beings, whether called 'creation science', 'scientific creationism', 'intelligent design theory', 'young earth theory', or similar designations, are outside the realm of science and not part of a valid science curriculum."

Proponents respond by saying that they only want to teach the scientific evidence and have students critically evaluate the issues, and that, even accepting the view of the scientific community, a discussion of the arguments made for and against it will only lead to a more rigorous and thorough understanding of the issues involved. The proposed policy, including issues to be analyzed by students can also be found in Ohio's Model Lesson Plan of 2004 and the peer-reviewed scientific literature to which it makes reference.

I've tidied the English of the proposal. My main worry, off the top of my head:
 * "Opponents believe that this conflicts with the position of mainstream science."

Is this what critics say? It's surely at best ambiguous.
 * i think you're right. i tried to clean it up.  what do you think?  Ungtss 21:36, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What do others think of the proposal? If we can agree on this, then we can go on to the rest of the article. Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 21:31, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It's not ready for prime time yet. It still fails to mention: 1) TTC is not just any old movement, but a political action movement. The fact that it's a PAC is not insignificant and needs to mentioned to understand the nature of the movement. 2) the majority of the criticisms of the TTC policy; that the policy is an attempt at reintroducing creationism into the classroom under the guise of putatively non-theological intelligent design and that there is no controversy to teach.

I'm working on a rewrite that includes these three points which are necessary. FeloniousMonk 21:56, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

An enormous paragraph devoted to Opponents POV and a quote from 1973, and no mention of the Ohio Model Lesson Plan of 2004? This is an important fact, not speculation, it gives examples of the evidence and issues to be analyzed and how (responding to Opponents claims), it contains refs to the relevant scientific literature, and it is the leading document framing the debate. There is no reason not to include it.--VorpalBlade 22:01, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I've remedied that in my new proposal. Both were red herrings anyway, and not the real issues.

 * I think this re-write is another example of propaganda. Creationists like to imply that evolution is dogma, i.e. beyond dispute; hence the phrase appears here. Of course, evolution is not a fact beyond dispute. All knowledge in science is provisional and therefore subject to revision, but evolution is the theory with the greatest explanatory power at present. The rest of the material tries to give the impression that there are two opposing factions and that their opinions should be given equal weight, but does anyone really think that the views of a small creationist think-tank, funded by a rather odd advocate of theocracy, are as important as the consensus of the the whole scientific community?Ian Pitchford 22:15, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That's not the point. First, this is a summary, not the whole article. Secondly, we're committed to presenting a NPoV article; that doesn't mean giving unequal views equal prominence, you're right — but it does entail giving both views fairly. I agree that all this creationist stuff is absurd (and, to be honest, rather boring; it replaces the excitement and wonder of science with the unchanging bare claim that the cause of everything is beyond our understanding — the only real excitement they get is playing political games with schoolchildren's education), but we mustn't let our opinions override Wikipedia policy. The creationists already think that anyone who is neutral is biased against them; we have to be scrupulous in our neutrality. Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 22:25, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Proposal II
Teach the Controversy is a Discovery Institute program. It is a political action movement in the United States which proposes an education policy for American public schools that involves presenting to students the scientific evidence for and against evolution, as well as the continuing debates within the scientific community, and then encouraging students to evaluate the evidence and controversies themselves. Proponents believe that there is evidence against evolution that is not taught in schools, and seek political and legal intervention to ensure that it is, and that students are encouraged to evaluate it critically. Opponents, in the form of the mainstream scientific organizations, have asserted that there is no controversy to teach. They point to the fact that evolution is widely accepted within the scientific community. They argue that to describe the continuing debates as to the details of evolutionary mechanisms as a "controversy" is to mischaracterize the nature and significance of the discussions. Another common objection to the Teach the Controversy policy is that the actual goal of many Teach the Controversy proponents is the return of the teaching of creationism to the public school classroom, now in the guise of intelligent design, which proponents contend is non-theological. In support, the critics point to numerous quotations from principal Teach the Controversy proponents, including its originator, that they believe just that.

Proponents respond by noting that they only want to teach scientific evidence and have students critically evaluate continuing debates in the scientific community. They also point out that what they advocate would comply with the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution, and that they have stated clearly that they no longer favor including either creationism or the Bible in biology textbooks or science classes. One example of the proposed educational policy, including issues to be analyzed by students, can be found in Ohio's Model Lesson Plan of 2004 and the scientific literature to which it makes reference.

 * Still propaganda. Advocating "presenting to students the scientific evidence for and against evolution" implies that there is evidence aginst evolution that is being suppressed, i.e. we're back to dogma and the views of the unnamed Chinese paleontologist about censorship in the US again but without referring to them specifically. Ian Pitchford 22:22, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * It is far from what I would call neutral, but I can live with this version. This is the best version so far (besides my own) and Monk shows a good faith effort to balance.  --VorpalBlade 22:28, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * I appreciate the nod and duly acknowledge that it seems to me you too are willing to work in good faith to reach consensus. Let's next consider the proposed methodlogy for moving forward, and revisit this later. FeloniousMonk 00:45, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

A suggestion
SUBJECT: This article is about a movement, a loose organisation of affliated beliefs/ideas/theories, etc., that all have a specific POV.

SOLUTION: Edit this article by removing all material that does not identify the momement, who belongs to it, how it is organised and by whom and what its core beliefs/ideas/theories, etc., are:
 * 1) statement one
 * 2) statement two
 * 3) statement three

CRITICS:Then, have a section underneath stating who its critics are and why they do not agree with the movement. Otherwise this will become (has become) a blog rather than an article. The solution is very simple and it can be performed right now!

Take a vote right now. If everyone likes the idea and will play fair, unlock the article and immediately remove the critis and state the 1, 2, 3 of the organisation. Make a section for the critics and DEMAND that the critics are very specific in their factual criticisms. MPLX/MH 00:25, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC0

 * I couldn't agree more. Thank you.  --VorpalBlade 00:53, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * You, sir, are my hero:). Ungtss 01:24, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Response to Suggestion and Votes Above
As Robert M. Young has often pointed out power often lies with the person who defines the situation. In this case the power to define the situation in the US public school system as one in which evidence against evolution is not taught lends legitimacy to the campaign to coerce biology teachers to teach something other than the position of mainstream science. Of course, members of the “teach the controversy” campaign want to claim that they are only arguing for the evidence to be taught and critically evaluated in schools, but the very existence of a campaign with those aims as stated implies that the majority of educators are either incompetent or corrupt, i.e., allowing the proponent’s definition of their aims to stand doesn’t contribute to the debate or to understanding of any kind but of itself ends the debate by acceptance of a thought-terminating cliché. Absolutely no one disgrees with “teaching the evidence”, but only a very, very few agree with “teaching the controversy” and so it’s pretty fundamental that these two phrases must not be equated if we are to give two hoots about the integrity of the US educational system.

With regard to the material presented under the heading “Square One” the following phrases are standard creationist propaganda

 * ”contemporary Darwinian theory” – educators don’t teach “Darwinian theory” they teach contemporary evolutionary biology in accordance with the consensus in the scientific community. That consensus is challenged by contributions to the peer-reviewed literature, not by political campaigns or sloganeering.

 * ”the growing controversy over biological origins” – the theory of evolution isn’t a theory of origins. Creationists like to give the impression that it is so that people are left with the choice between either creation or evolution, i.e. either you can be a decent god-fearing person and choose creation or you can side with the evil materialist teachers and scientists by choosing evolution. Even mainstream Christianity doesn’t accept the position that there is a conflict between belief in God an acceptance of the theory of evolution.

 * Anyone interested in the scientific consensus on the other items of propaganda in the article regarding the Cambrian explosion, natural selection etc can simply read the relevant reports produced by the National Center for Science Education or the detailed responses archived at talkorigins.org.

 * ”intelligent design is a new theory of biological origins” – ID is not a new theory of origins - it was proposed by William Paley in 1800, and as I mentioned above we are not dealing with two opposing theories of origins here, that is simply the fundamentalist assertion.

 * ”scientific strengths and weaknesses of orthodox Darwinism” – evolutionary biology is not based on “Darwinism” orthodox or otherwise. This eponym is used specifically to imply that evolutionary theory is based on dogma.

 * “polls show that over 70% of the electorate favor teaching both the evidence for and against Darwin’s theory of evolution” – of course they do, but “Darwin's theory of evolution” isn’t taught in schools, if it were students would know nothing of genetics, which does not appear in Darwin’s theory. Educators teach contemporary evolutionary biology!

Just as MPLX/MH says “in America, censorship should be the dirtiest word of all” and the “teach the controversy” movement shouldn’t be allowed to get away with it by the use of clever phraseology and by misrepresenting what educators and scientists do. Ian Pitchford 09:32, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Agreed, on all points. FeloniousMonk 13:36, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Proposal for Intro based on MPLX'S suggestion
Teach the Controversy is a movement in the United States that proposes an education policy for American public schools that entails presenting to students the scientific evidence for and against evolution, as well as the on-going debates within the scientific community, and then encouraging students to evaluate the evidence and controversies themselves. It is a loose coalition of various groups and individuals, but the leading proponents are the Discovery Institute and Phillip E. Johnson.

--VorpalBlade 01:27, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Comments on proposal
This is basically Monk's first sentence (which I think is better than my original one) and another sentence saying who the leading proponents are.

I took out "political action" because a biology teacher who on her own adopts the teaching model is part of the movement, and that is not "political action." --VorpalBlade 01:27, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * I think that you are on the right track. But rather than name the leading people last, name them first and explain in 1-2-3 order who triggered the creation of this movement; when they created it; how they created it and why they created it. Just fill in the blanks. It is very NPOV and depending upon whether more than 2 people started it and belong to it and whether the movement has made enough of a splash in the media to be mentioned, will determine whether it is encyclopedic. To prove that point you also need to remember to include a section for:

See also:

 * Creationism
 * Evolution

 * I agree with both points here, with one exception. That TTC is a political action movement is a fact. The intro needs to include that fact. Those who work collectively to advance TTC as a policy and those who codied the TTC strategy do so a PAM, irrespective of the motives of individual's who choose to implement it. I'll have to insist on this point being part of any intro. FeloniousMonk 13:42, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

External References

 * links to outside web sites.

MPLX/MH 03:14, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

SQUARE ONE
Well it took some searching but I finally "discovered" that this article is really about a program of the Discovery Institute. So I followed the links on their own external site and came up with this outside and independent description. It seems to me that what we have here is an ad hoc association of people who subscribe to a particular viewpoint. This is how a newspaper tried to interpret it for its readers - as it was reproduced on the Discovery Institute web site. I have highlighted the key words to show where they are mentioned (and to prove that I actually read it!:

 * Teach The Controversy
 * By: Stephen C. Meyer and John Angus Campbell
 * The Baltimore Sun
 * March 11, 2005

 * What should public schools teach about life’s origins? Should science educators teach only contemporary Darwinian theory, or not even mention it? Should school boards mandate that students learn about alternative theories? If so, which ones? Or should schools forbid discussion of all theories except neo-Darwinism?

These questions are now arising frequently as districts around the country consider how to respond to the growing controversy over biological origins.

Of course, many educators wish such controversies would simply go away. On the one hand, if science teachers teach only Darwinian evolution, many parents and religious activists will protest. On the other, if teachers present religiously-based creationism, they run afoul Supreme Court rulings. Either way, it seems educators face a no-win situation.

So what should they do? Is there any approach that will satisfy—if not everybody—at least most reasonable people?

Surprisingly, there is a way to teach evolution that will benefit students and satisfy all but the most extreme ideologues.

Rather than ignoring the controversy or teaching religiously-based ideas, teachers should teach about the scientific controversy that now exists over Darwinian evolution.

This is simply good education.

When credible experts disagree about a controversial subject, students should learn about competing perspectives.

In such cases teachers should not teach as true only one view—just the Republican or just the Democratic view of the New Deal in a history class, for example. Instead, teachers should describe competing views to students and explain the arguments for and against these views as made by their chief proponents. We call this "teaching the controversy."

But is there really a scientific, as opposed to just a cultural or religious controversy, over evolution?

In fact there are several significant scientific controversies about key aspects of evolutionary theory.

First, some scientists doubt the idea that all organisms have evolved from a single common ancestor. Why? Fossil studies reveal "a biological big bang" near the beginning of the Cambrian period (530 million years ago) when many major, separate groups of organisms or "phyla" (including most animal body plans) emerged suddenly without clear precursors. Fossil finds repeatedly have confirmed a pattern of explosive appearance and prolonged stability in living forms—not the gradual “branching-tree” pattern implied by Darwin’s common ancestry thesis.

Other scientists doubt the creative power of the Darwinian mechanism. While many scientists accept that natural selection can produce small-scale “micro-evolutionary” variations, many biologists now doubt that natural selection and random mutations can generate the large-scale changes necessary to produce fundamentally new structures and forms of life. Over 350 scientists, including researchers from institutions such as M.I.T, Yale, Rice, and the Smithsonian, have signed a statement questioning the creative power of the selection/mutation mechanism.

Finally, some scientists doubt the Darwinian idea that living things merely “appear” designed. Instead, they think that living systems display tell-tale signs of actual or “intelligent” design. Prominent scientists, like Lehigh University biochemist Michael Behe and former San Francisco State University biophysicist Dean Kenyon, have cited intriguing evidence in support of this theory such as the presence of digital information, complex circuits and miniature motors in living cells. Recently, mainstream academic publishers, notably Cambridge University Press, have published books and articles that present the scientific case for, and the debate over, intelligent design.

Since intelligent design is a new theory of biological origins, we recommend that students not be required to learn about it. Nevertheless, we think they should learn about the scientific strengths and weaknesses of orthodox Darwinism. Clearly, teachers should also be free to tell their students about alternative new theories like Behe’s design theory, provided these theories are based (as Behe’s is) upon scientific evidence, not scriptural texts.

There are many reasons to adopt this “teach the controversy” approach.

First, constitutional law permits it. In the controlling Edwards v. Aguillard case, the Supreme Court ruled that it is permissible to teach students about both alternative scientific theories of origins and scientific criticism of prevailing theories.

Second, federal education policy calls for it. The authoritative report language accompanying the No Child Left Behind act states that "where topics are taught that may generate controversy (such as biological evolution), the curriculum should help students to understand the full range of views that exist."

Third, polls show that over 70% of the electorate favor teaching both the evidence for and against Darwin’s theory of evolution.

Finally, teaching scientific controversies engages student interest and encourages them to do what scientists must do—deliberate about how best to interpret evidence. As Darwin wrote in the Origin of Species, "A fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question."

Stephen C. Meyer and John Angus Campbell are the editors of the recently released book Darwinism, Design and Public Education from Michigan State University Press. Meyer earned his Ph.D. Philosophy of Science from Cambridge University and is a Senior Fellow at the Discovery Institute in Seattle. Campbell is Professor of Communications at University of Memphis and a leading expert on the argument of Darwin’s Origin of Species.

 * So what do we learn from this article? Well it seems that there are indeed supporters and detractors and that the supporters are linked by the Discovery Institute and other memberships, while the detractors are not necessarily in contact with other, but unified in their oppostion (for whatever their reasons) of this approach to teaching.

 * Therefore I think that it is possible to write a new article along the lines that I proposed above and rather than classify it as "religion", it would be less controversial as an article if it was classified under "education" and "teaching". I know that people who don't agree with the viewpoint will disagree, but the detractors have to be careful unless they find themselves attacking themselves as being close-minded bigots who believe in one way or no way. Then the left wing suddenly becomes the accused right wing.

The best way to teach is by inclusion, never exclusion and never by censorship! In America, censorship should be the dirtiest word of all! MPLX/MH 03:50, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

SEE: Talk:Discovery Institute MPLX/MH 06:16, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * I really don't see that this has helped at all, especially as, from the quick look I had at the very recent material archived prematurely (and which I've replaced above), some consensus was being reached. Incidentally, to say that people who don't agree will disagree isn't very informative.  Moreover we're not in America, nor is anyone talking about censorship — introducing emotive terms like that is designed to make matters worse, not better. Mel Etitis  ( Μελ Ετητης ) 09:32, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * I agree with Mel on this. I'm wondering exactly what is to be gained by decrying censorship here and what your reason is for doing so? I think this is counter-productive; it is a tactic often used to protect or favor one particular POV. I'm also not convinced of the merit of breaking out the article's info into the strict functional sections of description and then criticism. This seems to go against the style guide and the injunction against pro/con lists. I'm finding MPLX's justifications uncompelling as to exactly why any of this is necessary, and I suspect that you may be arguing from one particular side here. Would you mind fully disclosing your personal POV on TTC/ID/creationism to us here? FeloniousMonk 13:54, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Of axes and squares...

 * I have no ax to grind on this issue - none at all - totally neutral. My interest was in trying to clear up a mess, but what I discovered was that there are SEVERAL existing and duplicated articles on Wikipedia that are all covering the same thing and none of them are very good! There is even a mirror of this article. This article relates to the newspaper article referenced above and that is referenced on the Discovery Institute site itself. If you read the Discovery Institute web site articles you will soon discover that the entire presentation on Wikipedia had been written as though their entire cause was about one topic: creationism v. Darwinism and that is not what you will find on the DI linked pages.

 * I was trying to assist in cleaning up a mess, for which an unnamed contributor has hurled bricks at me since he has a superior attitude of being the final judge of all. I don't like that attitude at all. However, before work continues here I suggest that everyone takes a look at the DI site and at the MIRROR of this article on Wikipedia. I discovered it by reaching the conclusion that this article had the wrong title and so I used the DI title to create a new article ... only to discover that it already existed on Wikipedia. There are several interrelated articles on Wikipedia and I suggest that everyone goes to "square one" - NOT a religious term - just a bit of British common sense (since no one likes my references to the USA - I am British by the way.)

 * Have fun! MPLX/MH 16:17, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Summary done. Now the Overview
As agreement, albeit somewhat grudging (but that's probably the best we can hope for) was achieved concerning the summary, I've inserted it into the article (with a little copy-editing, Wikifying, and a mention of Discovery Institute). If anyone objects to any of my tidying, let me know, and I can go back and change it.

Given the success of that operation, could we do the same for the Overview section? Would anyone care to suggest a compromise Overview to be inserted in place of the current version? Then other editors can sugest changes or alternatives, and we'll see if an agreed-upon version can be reached. Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 09:53, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * The following has been removed from my Talk page because it belongs here:

Teach the Controversy page
Thanks for your contribution. Who has the power to unlock a page and how does that happen? Is your proposal just a proposal, or is it Wiki policy? Seems like attacks on a movement should never be in the intro paragraph.

If you don't mind me asking, who decides what version to lock and on what basis? It seems to me a very unjust decision was made on this page, and it disillusioned me with the whole Wiki process. Thanks again. --VorpalBlade 01:06, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Thanks for you comments. However, I tried exactly what you propose, then others came in and insisted that the intro had to say that the movement is a ploy, and then they convinced an admin to lock it.  Look at what it is now.  I doubt they will agree to what you propose, and they seem to have the power to block any improvement toward a neutral statement.

 * If it was as simple and obvious as you propose, why would the Admin lock a version that just made massive deletions and turned the intro into an attack? --VorpalBlade 03:55, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I can understand why VorpalBlade is so pleased. I had just managed to get things cooled down between most of the parties, with two of the main antagonists agreeing on a summary (VorpalBlade reluctantly), when you barge in, archive the Talk so far (including a great deal of material so recent that I hadn't had a chance to read it), and start your own approach from scratch. That was neither well-mannered nor productive. I only hope that I can salvage the earlier agreement. Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 09:38, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

title: Talk:Teach the Controversy/Archive 2


text:
Talk:Cordé

I fixed the page up a bit. It looks better now. --Kross 02:19, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

title: Talk:Cordé


text:
Robert Smellie

Robert Gordon "Bob" Smellie (August 23, 1923 – September 29, 2005) was a Canadian politician in Manitoba, Canada. He was a Progressive Conservative member of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba from 1959 to 1966, and served as a cabinet minister in the government of Dufferin Roblin.

The son of Albert George Smellie and Jessie May Cummings, Smellie was born in Russell, was educated at Brandon College and the Manitoba Law School, and worked as a barrister at law before entering politics. He served in the Canadian Army with the Royal Winnipeg Rifles during World War II and was a member of the Canadian Legion and of the Manitoba Travel and Convention Association. In 1946, Smellie married Lois Evelyn Cochrane. He was originally a supporter of the Liberal-Progressives, but was drafted by Dufferin Roblin to join the Progressive Conservatives in the mid-1950s.

He first ran for the Manitoba legislature in the 1958 provincial election, but lost to Liberal-Progressive incumbent Rodney Clement by 130 votes in the constituency of Birtle-Russell. He ran again in the 1959 election, and defeated Clement by 224 votes as the Progressive Conservatives won their first majority government in forty-five years.

Smellie was re-elected by a greater margin in the 1962 election, and was named Minister of Municipal Affairs on February 27, 1963. He remained in this position until July 22, 1966, when he was demoted to minister without portfolio. He lost to Rod Clement by 145 votes in the 1966 provincial election.

After his defeat, Smellie served chair of the Manitoba Local Boundaries Commission. This group produced a report on Winnipeg's internal boundaries in 1970, but its findings were superseded by the creation of a unicity the following year. After he retired from the practice of law, he served as chairman of the Municipal Board of Manitoba. Smellie died in 2005.

title: Robert Smellie


text:
List of Tom Sawyer characters

Mark Twain's series of books featuring the fictional characters Tom Sawyer and Huckleberry Finn include:

 * 1) The Adventures of Tom Sawyer (1876)
 * 2) Adventures of Huckleberry Finn (1884)
 * 3) Tom Sawyer Abroad (1894)
 * 4) Tom Sawyer, Detective (1896)

Tom Sawyer
Thomas "Tom" Sawyer, based on the young Samuel Clemens, is a cunning and playful boy of unspecified (although he loses one of his upper front teeth in the story) years of age, and the protagonist of the story. His best friends include Joe Harper and Huckleberry Finn. He has a half-brother, Sid Sawyer, a cousin, Mary, and an Aunt Polly, the sister of his dead mother. He lives with them in the town of St. Petersburg, Missouri. Also, he has another aunt, Sally Phelps, who lives considerably farther down the Mississippi River, in the town of Pikesville. Tom loves to go on adventures and wants to become a Native American pirate. He fell in love with his classmate Becky Thatcher and was once "engaged" to Amy Lawrence. Tom is imaginative and obsessed with stories. Despite his mischief, Tom is good-hearted and has an active moral code as well; he develops deeper thinking and a more intellectually-mature outlook on life throughout the stories.

Sally and Silas Phelps
Tom and Sid's other aunt, Sally Phelps, lives considerably farther down the Mississippi River, in the town of Pikesville. She is married to Silas Phelps. Like her sister Polly, Sally rules her roost with a firm hand, but she always means well, and is similarly kind and lovingly caring.

Aunt Polly
Mary's mother and Tom and Sid's aunt, the sister of their dead mother. Tom and Sid live with Aunt Polly and her daughter Mary. She does at first seem a bit controlling and abusive, but in spite of the relentless discipline and spiritual guidance she dispenses, she comes off as a caring, noble character. When Tom points out that nobody seems to care about Huck's being alive after they were both presumed dead, Aunt Polly generously gives her love to Huck as well, saying, "And so they shall. I'm glad to see him, poor motherless thing!" and the "loving attentions Aunt Polly lavished upon him were the one thing capable of making him more uncomfortable than he was before". In fact, the last impression we get of Aunt Polly is of a similar nature: "There was something about Aunt Polly's manner when she kissed Tom, that swept away his low spirits and made him lighthearted and happy again". She is a very bright woman and she deeply cares about Tom, Sid, Mary, and --- eventually --- Huck. She always falls for Tom's pranks but is always able to laugh at herself when she realizes how perpetually gullible she is; she also gradually develops a greater realization of Tom's true character and a deeper sense of respect for him when he performs unexpected acts of caring and conscience.

Mary
Aunt Polly's daughter, and Tom and Sid's cousin. She is gentle and good-natured and has great patience with Tom despite his tricks. It is unsaid whether or not she is older than the siblings, but due to her mature personality we are led to believe so.

Sid Sawyer
Tom's whiny half-brother; who also lives with Aunt Polly and Mary. He behaves well, but enjoys getting Tom into trouble and tattles on him. He appears to be around nine years old and lies; he also seems to annoy Tom frequently.

Huckleberry Finn
Huckleberry "Huck" Finn is the protagonist and narrator of Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, Tom Sawyer Abroad, and Tom Sawyer, Detective. Huck is one of Tom's best friends. After The Adventures of Tom Sawyer Huck describes his own adventure in Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, including how he escapes from his drunken, abusive father, and how he met Jim, the runaway slave. Like Tom, Huck often engages in somewhat unruly behavior, but in reality he has a very kind heart and a deeply caring personality, sometimes displaying even stronger morals than he himself realizes. He also progressively matures morally and intellectually throughout the stories, just as Tom does.

Pap Finn
Huck's abusive, drunken father. He had vanished prior to the beginning of Adventures of Huckleberry Finn but shows up at the beginning of that story and forcibly takes his son to live with him. He also tries to sue Judge Thatcher to get the six thousand dollars Huck had given the Judge for safekeeping, and confiscates whatever money Huck has in his pocket, using it to get drunk. He is infuriated that his son would try to amount to more than he did and live in better conditions. He demands that Huck quit school, threatening him with whipping. Soon after Huck escapes, Pap Finn leaves to search for him and doesn't return. At the end of Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, Jim reveals to Huck that the corpse they found in the abandoned house early in the book was actually that of Huck's father. Pap Finn's backstory is explored in Finn: A Novel (2007), by Jon Clinch.

Joe Harper
Joseph "Joe" Harper is one of Tom's best friends. He joins Tom and Huck as a pirate when they run away from home to Jacksons Island. He makes a few other small appearances in the novel, including playing Robin Hood in the woods and getting caught not paying attention in class with Tom, and Joe also plays war with Tom. But he gradually disappears as the plot of the novel ensues. His mother is Sereny Harper and his sisters are Susan and Faith Harper. He is the first to get homesick while on the island with Tom and Huck.

Injun Joe
Injun Joe is the primary antagonist in The Adventures of Tom Sawyer, described as a "half-breed" Native American. He, Muff Potter, and Dr. Robinson visit the town cemetery one night to steal a body from a grave at Robinson's request. Injun Joe then kills Robinson to settle an old grudge and frames Potter for the crime, unaware that Tom and Huck have witnessed it. When the case comes to trial, Tom testifies on Potter's behalf and identifies Injun Joe as the actual killer, prompting the latter to flee the courtroom. He and another confederate later find a hoard of stolen gold and hide it in a cave, where Tom briefly encounters him while trying to find a way out with Becky Thatcher. After Tom and Becky escape the cave, Becky's father has it sealed; Injun Joe is later found just inside the entrance, having starved to death.

The Ragged Man
Injun Joe's partner in crime. The two use an abandoned house as a hideout and discover a chest of gold coins buried in one of its rooms, which they believe to be loot from robberies committed by John Murrell and his gang. About the time of Injun Joe's accidental death in the cave, the body of the "ragged man" is found near the town's water landing-after apparently drowning. His name was Emmett in Disney's 1995 film Tom and Huck.

Jim
Jim flees slavery with Huck, who was escaping his drunken father. Jim hopes to reach the free states and buy his family's freedom. He is polite and good-natured, and accompanies Huck throughout the story. At the end of the book, Tom reveals that his owner had died since they left home, and she had freed Jim in her will. Of Jim, Russell Baker wrote:
 * "The people whom Huck and Jim encounter on the Mississippi are drunkards, murderers, bullies, swindlers, lynchers, thieves, liars, mows, frauds, child abusers, numbskulls, hypocrites, windbags and traders in human flesh. All are white. The one man of honor in this phantasmagoria is 'N-word Jim,' as Twain called him to emphasize the irony of a society in which the only true gentleman was held beneath contempt."

Contrary to popular report, Jim is never referred to in the text as "Nigger Jim." He is always just "Jim." He is once referred to descriptively as "a nigger slave named Jim," and Huck remarks that it was hard for him "to humble myself to a nigger, but I done it, and warn't never sorry for it afterwards."

"The King" and "the Duke"
Two con men whom Huck meets in his adventures down the Mississippi and the main antagonists of Adventures of Huckleberry Finn. They join Huck and Jim on the raft to escape an angry mob that was chasing them out of a town. The younger one initially claims to be the true heir of the Duke of Bridgewater, and the older one the lost son of Louis XVI and the rightful king of France. Thus, Huck refers to them as "the king" and "the duke" throughout the narration of the book. During their time in the story, they collaborate to stage many swindles, including pretending to be the brothers of a deceased man so they can steal his estate. They are later separated from Huck and Jim, tarred and feathered, and ridden out of town on a rail.

Amy Lawrence
Amy is Becky Thatcher's rival for most of The Adventures of Tom Sawyer, and dislikes Becky. Amy is Tom's first love, but is swept from his thoughts the moment he sees Becky. After a little slip-up from Tom, he returns to Amy to make Becky jealous.

Muff Potter
Muff Potter is a friendly fisherman who drinks heavily, loves children, and is a close friend of Tom and Huck. He often mends the children's kites and helps them fish. He and Injun Joe are hired by Dr. Robinson to dig up a grave one night in order to steal its corpse, but Joe kills Robinson and then convinces Potter that he himself committed the murder while drunk. Muff is then sent to jail for the accused murder of Dr. Robinson. Potter is tried for the crime, but Tom's eyewitness testimony results in his acquittal.

Dr. Robinson
The doctor who wanted the grave dug up. He was subsequently murdered by Injun Joe, who framed Muff Potter for the crime.

A different character of the same name in Adventures of Huckleberry Finn was the only man who recognized that the King and Duke were phonies when they tried to pretend to be British. He warned the townspeople, but they ignored him.

Ben Rogers
Benjamin "Ben" Rogers is another child, Tom's age. In chapter 2, Tom convinces Ben to whitewash the fence for him. He gives Tom an apple to do so. Tom wants Ben to be in his crew of robbers.

Becky Thatcher
Rebecca "Becky" Thatcher is Judge Thatcher's daughter, known for being Tom's girlfriend. Her long blonde hair is always worn in braids. She wins Tom's love from the first moment he sees her. When she first encounters Tom, she gives him a purple pansy to show her love. She soon becomes engaged to him by swearing to love only him and sealing their engagement with a kiss. When he mentions that he used to be with Amy Lawrence, Becky believes that he still loves Amy and gets angry at him. After Becky accidentally tears a page in the teacher's anatomy book, Tom claims responsibility and takes the punishment she would have received, winning her affections again. The two become lost in a cave for several days after wandering away from a school picnic, but Tom eventually finds a way out and they soon return to full health.

In Huckleberry Finn she is also referred to as "Bessie". Becky was based on Laura Hawkins, an actual friend of Samuel Clemens.

Judge Thatcher
Although Judge Thatcher plays a minor role in The Adventures of Tom Sawyer, he plays a substantial role in The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn. Judge Thatcher shares responsibility for Huckleberry Finn with the Widow Douglas, and it is to Judge Thatcher that Huckleberry Finn signs over his fortune in order to keep it from his father.

Mr. Dobbins
The hated schoolmaster at Tom's school, who has taken the job after failing to become a doctor. He is easily angered and is described as "short-tempered." He is a victim of a plot by his pupils, who secretly paint his bald head gold while he is napping and then use a cat to remove his toupee during a public display of his pupils' knowledge. When Becky Thatcher accidentally tears a page in Mr. Dobbins' anatomy book, Tom takes the blame and receives a spanking in her place, winning her admiration.

title: List of Tom Sawyer characters


text: User talk:68.150.70.12

title: User talk:68.150.70.12


text: User talk:203.244.221.1

title: User talk:203.244.221.1


text:
Impetus (album)

Impetus is a reissue of the EP Passive Restraints by the band Clutch in 1997.

Album information
The EP has two tracks added to it from the Naive album, a compilation of bands that Earache Records put out in 1992, which has since been unavailable due to a lawsuit from Evian, as the album cover looked exactly like the bottled water logo it uses. The contents of this EP are the same as the original, with a demo version of the title track added, and the song "Pile Driver" from the 12" vinyl edition of Pitchfork from 1991.

In late 2018, the EP was reissued on vinyl, using the artwork from the original three-track Passive Restraints release.

Personnel

 * Neil Fallon - vocals
 * Tim Sult - guitar
 * Dan Maines - bass
 * Jean-Paul Gaster - drums

Production
 * Produced by "Uncle Punchy" Lawrence Packer at Uncle Punchy Studios in Silver Spring, Maryland

Trivia

 * The song "Impetus" was featured in the Tony Hawk's Underground soundtrack.

title: Impetus (album)


text:
Category:University of Florida

 * The University of Florida — a in the, located in ,.

title: Category:University of Florida


text:
Zsolt Nagy (politician)

Zsolt Nagy (born June 21, 1971 in Târgu Mureș) is a Romanian politician of Hungarian ethnicity.

From December 29, 2004 to April 5, 2007, he served as the Minister for Communications and Information Technology in the first government led by Călin Popescu-Tăriceanu.

Currently is the CEO of Niro Investment Group, since 2017, having succeeded to gather relevant experience and partnership with national and international key players in the business environment. Niro Investment group has over 20 subsidiary companies and 2 humanitarian foundations, it has over 600 employees and develops and manages real estate properties. Nagy has restructured, optimized the company internally and closed successful negotiations with Accor Group (Swissotel) and Corinthia Group for two important hotel projects in Romania.

Since 2007, he has been actively involved in business development and consultancy in real estate, IT&C, mergers and acquisitions (M&A), renewable energy, and media. Some of his achievements are: closing 3 hotel management agreements (Starwood/Sheraton, Corinthia, Accor/Swissotel), developing renewable energy projects (4 wind farms and 2 photovoltaic plans), and M&A in Telecom.

During 2004-2007, he was the Minister for IT&C within the Romanian Government. Main achievements: launching 3rd GSM operator Cosmote (currently Telekom Romania), thus improving competitiveness in the telecom market and dropping the prices for endusers. Launching innovative projects: PLC (first time in Romania to provide Internet through Powerline Communication. G2C (Government to citizen projects): "Ghiseulvirtual.ro" - currently "ghiseul.ro" - as online payment interface for citizens to government. Restructuring of the Romanian Post. He also created and promoted the brand "Cre@tive Romania", thus attracting IT investors in Romania and promoting Romanian IT abroad. He also initiated legislation and regulation which made it possible for Romania to have one of the fastest Internet in Europe. Nagy implemented internet access points for rural areas. Not least, he was the one initiating and setting up the e-government Strategy of Romania.

1995 - 2007 - Political Professional - Leader of Democratic Alliance of Hungarians in Romania as Vice President. Achievements: Chief of National Campaign Staff, Representative in European Peoples Party, Restructuring the organizations, Setting-up national training system. Implementing internet access points for rural areas, Organising National Congress of the Party. He has been an active part of Romanian leadership and politics. He was also member of the European Popular Party (1999 – 2004), contributing massively to promoting Romania at European level, especially targeting the promotion of the potential IT Romanian sector.

Education
After graduating the Bolyai Farkas Math–Physics High School in Târgu Mureș, he followed an engineering specialization, namely, the Technical University of Cluj-Napoca, Faculty of Automatics and Computing. He graduated in 1995 as a diplomat engineer in Industrial and Automatic Informatics.

He then followed courses for young political leaders in International Republican Institute: Young Political Leader's School (1996-1997), Fundația pentru Pluralism și DAC Hungary: Building the Future Together (1998-1999), National Democrat Institute: Political Parties Exchange: Campaign Management - Washington, D.C. (1999) and Robert Schumann Institute, Political Leader School - Budapest (2000).

While he was a student, he was a member of Hungarian Students Union in Cluj (1990-1995) and he became member of Hungarian Scientific and Technical Society (1992). He was president of Progress Foundation (2000) and became the president of Janovics Jenő Foundation (2004).

He speaks Romanian, Hungarian, and English fluently.

Politics, UDMR
Nagy became a member of UDMR in 1990 and then member of the Executive Presidency of UDMR (1995). He had an organic growth of his political posture, in 1996 being deputy head of the whole national campaign for the general elections. One year later, he was the chief organizer of the UDMR congress, and again in 1999 and 2003. During the Parliamentary elections in 2000 he was, again, responsible for leading the elections process and then, in October 2003 he was appointed chief campaign for the referendum regarding the Constitution modifications. In 2004, he led both campaigns: the locals in 2004 and the legislative ones also in 2004.

Starting with 1995, he had executive and leadership roles in UDMR: executive vice-president for youth (1995-1999), executive vice-president for territorial organizations (1999-2003) and executive vice-president for territorial organizations and local public administration (2003-2005). He was UDMR's representative within the European Democrat Union and European Peoples Party (1998-2009).

Personal life
Zsolt Nagy is married and has four children.

Achievements as Minister of IT&C
Nagy was appointed as minister of Communication and Information Society in the Tăriceanu I Cabinet on December 29, 2004. The most important achievements:

 * Launching the third GSM operator – Cosmote, currently Telekom, thus succeeding to considerably improve the competitivity in the telecom market and significantly reduce the tariffs for the end-users.
 * He has launched several innovative projects: PLC – for the first time in Romania, internet was provided through Powerline Communication. G2C (Government to citizen) projects: he was the initiator of "Ghiseulvirtual.ro" – currently "ghiseul.ro" – which is the online interface between citizen and administration.
 * Restructuring of the Romanian Post.
 * He also created and promoted the "Cre@tive Romania" brand, through which many IT investors became interested and acquainted with Romanian IT sector potential.
 * He initiated the necessary legal framework and regulations, thus Romania succeeding.
 * Nagy has implemented internet access in rural areas.
 * He has initiated and formed Romania's e-government strategy.

Controversies
Zsolt Nagy was accused by the National Anticorruption Directorate (DNA) that, together with the Minister of Justice Tudor Chiuariu, he elaborated and signed Government Decision HG 377/2007, through which a building and its terrain that belong to the Romanian Post was changed as legal regime form publicly owned by the state to the legal regime of privately owned by the state.

Nagy declared that in 1998 the Romanian Post became a “company” by legal framework and all its properties had to be legally aligned with that regime. Rightfully so, despite the legal trial and the conviction Nagy endured, his actions proved to be right, since the Government Decision he initiated has been implemented and is respected until this day. The terrain is even now, 6 years after the trial, still privately owned by the Post, respected and implemented as legal decision, despite the fact that Nagy was convicted for it. He has never been accused or convicted of sub-evaluation, taking or giving any material advantages.

Nagy was also accused that, as a minister, he supported “morally and intellectually” an organized group, in the famous “strategic privatizations” file. There are no facts or proven wrong deeds imputed to Nagy, only phone conversations of other thirds parties talking and mentioning his name. He has been suspended from his position. Even though convicted, no privatization took place till this day and no prejudice has been imputed upon him. Finally, in 2016, the Constitutional Court decided and declared that the Romanian Intelligence Service (SRI) cannot operate any legal prosecution, even though this whole file and trial was based only on phone conversations of third parties. Sadly, these Court Decisions cannot be implemented retroactively.

In his defense, after his conviction, four decisions of the Constitutional Court were issued:

 * The Constitutional Court defines the abuse as breaking a law that produces prejudices and unlawful material advantages. Nagy never produced any prejudice and was never even accused of this by initiating a Government Decision. On the contrary, it is important to mention that it would have been a breaking of the law of the terrain had not been properly and legally aligned with its privately owned regime.

 * The Constitutional Court decided the members of the Government cannot be investigated regarding the circumstances of adopting normative acts.

 * The Constitutional Court decided that the panels consisting of 3 judges could not have judge DNA files, because there was supposed to be a specialized panel for such trials.

 * The Constitutional Court decided in 2019 that the panels of 5 judges had been illegally constituted since February 2014.

All people that had on-going trials benefited from these decisions. The decisions could not be applied retroactively, so it was too late for Nagy. That is why, he is waiting for a response from the European Human Rights Court.

title: Zsolt Nagy (politician)


text: User talk:68.198.45.173

title: User talk:68.198.45.173


text:
User:JTM IV

 * JTM IV is otherwise known as John Thomas Miller IV. His hobbies include geopoltical discussion, bantering about cutting edge physics theories in layman's terms, playing competitive PC games, researching Masonic lore, and attempting to learn and understand as much about how the world and its inhabitants work as possible.

 * JTM IV is a avid reader of history in general and Crusader and Hellenic material in particular, military science fiction, fantasy, contemporary realistic fiction, philosophy, and as much about current events as possible.

title: User:JTM IV


text:
Dyshidrosis

Dyshidrosis is a type of dermatitis, characterized by itchy vesicles of $1 mm$ in size, on the palms of the hands, sides of fingers, or bottoms of the feet. Outbreaks usually conclude within three to four weeks, but often recur. Repeated attacks may result in fissures and skin thickening. The cause of the condition is not known.

Symptoms
The characteristics of dyshidrosis are itchiness of the palms or soles, followed by the sudden development of intensely itchy small vesicles on the sides of the fingers, the palms or the feet, sometimes described as having a "tapioca pudding" appearance. The vesicles may develop in waves. After a few weeks, the top layer of skin may fall off and inflammation appear around the bases of the vesicles, and there may be peeling, rings of scale, or lichenification. After three to four weeks the vesicles will disappear. While they are present there is a risk of secondary bacterial infection. The locations of the eruption may be symmetrical on the body, and redness is not usually present.

Causes
Whilst the exact causes of the condition are currently unknown, its triggers may include food allergens from a wide range of foods, including tuna, tomato, pineapple, chocolate, coffee, and spices among others, physical or mental stress, frequent hand washing, or metals. A number of studies have implicated balsam of Peru. A 2013 study found that dyshydrosis on the hands increased among those allergic to house dust mites, following inhalation of house dust mite allergen. Id reaction and irritant contact dermatitis are also possible causes.

In 2005, researchers from Anhui Medical University and the Chinese National Human Genome Center, Beijing, theorizing that mutations in single genes could predispose the condition, ran a study of a Chinese family with the condition present across four generations via autosomal dominant inheritance. Their analysis of haplotypes within the family identified a locus for the condition on chromosome 18.

Diagnosis
Dyshidrosis is diagnosed clinically by gathering a patient's history and making observations. Allergy testing and culture may be done to rule out other problems. Severity of symptoms can also be assessed using the dyshidrotic eczema area and severity index (DASI), although it was designed for clinical trials and is not typically used in practice.

Treatment
Avoiding triggers may be useful, as may be the application of a barrier cream or wearing of gloves. Treatment is generally made with steroid cream, although this can be dangerous in the long term due to the side effect of thinning of the skin, which is particularly troublesome in the context of hand dyshidrosis due to the amount of toxins and bacteria the hands typically come in contact with. High strength steroid creams may be required for the first week or two.

In especially acute and severe cases, systemic steroids can be taken orally; the immunosuppressive drug tacrolimus, or PUVA therapy may also be tried. Dapsone (diamino-diphenyl sulfone), an antibacterial, has been recommended for the treatment of dyshidrosis in some chronic cases.

Antihistamines such as Fexofenadine may be used to help with the itching. Potassium permanganate dilute solution soaks are popular, used to "dry out" the vesicles and kill off superficial Staphylococcus aureus, but they can be very painful and undiluted may cause significant burning.

Alitretinoin (9-cis-retinoic acid) has been approved for prescription in the UK. It is specifically used for chronic hand and foot eczema. It is made by Basilea of Switzerland (BAL 4079).

Epidemiology
A study of 20,000 randomly-selected individuals in Gothenburg, Sweden in 1988 found 2% of male respondents and 3% of female respondents to have dyshidrosis, and that it comprised 5% of cases of hand eczema of any type. A study of 6300 pediatric patients in Turkey in 2006 found 1% to have dyshidrosis.

History of classification
The condition was named dyshidrosis by the British dermatologist William Tilbury Fox in 1873, in a clinical lecture wherein he presented it as "a disordered condition of the sweat-follicles and the sweat-function... which is, as a rule, diagnosed as eczema, but is a separate and distinct affair... I have termed the disease dysidrosis [sic], because nature seems to have a difficulty in getting rid of the secreted sweat, which remains to distend the follicles, and to macerate the tissues." His theory that the condition was related to sweat was soon observed as unproven in scholarly publication and subsequent research on multiple occasions has shown an absence of relation to the sweat glands.

The condition had already been described clinically in a lecture in 1871 by Sir Jonathan Hutchinson, who had named it cheiro-pompholyx. Hutchinson's work was based on his observations, in 1864, of the same woman patient who Tilbury Fox would later describe in his own lecture. In 1875 Hutchinson published his book Illustrations of Clinical Surgery, describing the condition of "cheiro-pompholyx" without making reference to Tilbury Fox's work. This led to a dispute between the two dermatologists, played out in letters to The Lancet.

Tilbury Fox was aggrieved that his reading of Hutchinson's lecture suggested it to imply Hutchinson had been the first to formally describe the condition. Hutchinson apologised, saying that he had been in too much of a hurry to publish to read Tilbury Fox's work, and being aware that Tilbury Fox had described it as a sweating disorder, he had considered it to be a different condition to the one he was writing about. In the same letter he chastised Tilbury Fox for claiming propriety over describing the vesicles as resembling "a sago grain", a comparison that he had also independently made, and noted that the subject of his lecture in 1871 had been his patient for several years before Tilbury Fox's lecture.

In an editorial for the Chicago Medical Journal and Examiner, Dr. Nathan Smith Davis wryly described the dispute as "not the first occasion upon which two eminent men have contended for the honor of a lady's hand."

After a paper by Dr. A. R. Robinson describing the condition, entitled "Pompholyx" and mentioning the dispute, was published in the Archives of Dermatology the following year, Tilbury Fox responded with a strident critique of Robinson's conclusions and accused him of having misrepresented the facts of the dispute.

title: Dyshidrosis


text: User talk:64.230.16.61

title: User talk:64.230.16.61


text:
Jam Room

Jam Room is the fourth full-length album by the American rock band Clutch, released in 1999 on the band's own label River Road Records.

Album information
The initial limited release contained 12 tracks in 1999 and was a European release only to begin with, and had to be an import for their home country United States, but in 2004 it was reissued by Megaforce Records with three additional tracks, "The Drifter", "I Send Pictures", and "Sink 'Em Low" added to the album's song list.

The version of "Sink 'Em Low" found on the reissue is the demo version of the same track found on Pure Rock Fury, which is faster and heavier. The track "One Eye Dollar" was re-recorded in 2007 on the album From Beale Street to Oblivion.

It was another example of the band releasing demo versions to songs that would later become something slightly different, as they did with Impetus, Pitchfork & Lost Needles and Slow Hole to China, the former being a reissue itself, the middle album a compilation of early material as well as unreleased, and the latter having its own reissue some years later with extra tracks, just like this album did.

It captures the various styles of the band, with a very diverse mix of punk / heavy roots, through their more stoner rocker styles, it adds some blues rock to the mix finally with unaccredited organ on some tracks (a style the band would embrace in the future much more prolifically) and continues with some of their funk metal efforts as well.

Track listing
All songs written by Clutch.

Personnel

 * Neil Fallon - vocals
 * Tim Sult - guitar
 * Dan Maines - bass
 * Jean-Paul Gaster - drums
 * Delfeayo Marsalis - horns on "Release the Dub"
 * Heartbeat - percussion on "I Send Pictures"
 * Spoken word on "Release the Kraken" from the 'Brewers Dictionary of Phrases and Fables'

Production

 * Produced by Clutch and Sir Lawrence Packer
 * Recorded at Uncle Punchy Studios, Silver Spring, Maryland
 * Engineering by Larry "Uncle Punchy" Packer
 * Mastered at Masterdisk by Howie Weinberg
 * Photography by Steve Truglio

title: Jam Room