text:
Samuel George Morton

Samuel George Morton (January 26, 1799 – May 15, 1851) was an American physician, natural scientist, and writer. As one of the early figures of scientific racism, he argued against monogenism, the single creation story of the Bible, instead supporting polygenism, a theory of multiple racial creations.

He was a prolific writer of books on various subjects from 1823 to 1851. He wrote Geological Observations in 1828, and both Synopsis of the Organic Remains of the Cretaceous Group of the United States and Illustrations of Pulmonary Consumption in 1834. His first medical essay, on the use of cornine in intermittent fever was published in the Philadelphia Journal of the Medical and Physical Sciences in 1825. His bibliography includes Hybridity in Animals and Plants (1847), Additional Observation on Hybridity (1851), and An Illustrated System of Human Anatomy (1849).

Early life and career
Born in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Morton was raised as a Quaker and educated at Westtown School and the University of Pennsylvania, from where he graduated in 1820. He then earned an advanced degree from the University of Edinburgh, in Scotland, and began to practice medicine in Philadelphia in 1824. He was one of the founders of the Pennsylvania Medical College in Philadelphia and served as its professor of anatomy from 1839 until his resignation in 1843. He was elected a member of the American Philosophical Society in 1828 and the American Antiquarian Society in 1844. He is buried at Laurel Hill Cemetery, Philadelphia.

"American School" ethnology
Samuel George Morton is often thought of as the originator of "American School" ethnology, a school of thought in antebellum American science that claimed the difference between humans was one of species rather than variety and is seen by some as the origin of scientific racism. Morton claimed the Bible supported polygenism, and working in a biblical framework, his theory stated that each race had been created separately and each was given specific, irrevocable characteristics.

After inspecting three mummies from ancient Egyptian catacombs, Morton concluded that Caucasians and Negroes were already distinct three thousand years ago. Since the Bible indicated that Noah's Ark had washed up on Mount Ararat, Morton claimed that Noah's sons could not possibly account for every race on earth. According to Morton's theory of polygenesis, races have been separate since the start.

Morton claimed that he could define the intellectual ability of a race by the skull capacity. A large volume meant a large brain and high intellectual capacity, and a small skull indicated a small brain and decreased intellectual capacity. He was reputed to hold the largest collection of skulls, on which he based his research. He claimed that each race had a separate origin, and that a descending order of intelligence could be discerned that placed Caucasians at the pinnacle and Negroes at the lowest point, with various other race groups in between. His research of ancient Egyptians was meant to show that this racial hierarchy had always existed and should remain in place. When confronted with evidence that many ancient Egyptians had dark skin like other Africans, Morton used skull measurements to corroborate the words of Georges Curvier: "whatever may have been the hue of their skin, they belonged to the same race with ourselves." Aside from this occasionally dark-skinned Caucasian ruling class, Morton's skull measurements led him to admit "Negroes were numerous in Egypt but their social position in ancient times was the same that it now is, that of servants and slaves." Morton's scholarship greatly contributed to Egyptology and several other disciplines adopting the Hamitic Hypothesis, the idea that civilization is antithetical to Negroes and a legacy of the Caucasian race such that any evidence of civilization in Africa must have derived from Caucasian presence or influence. Morton's skull collection was held at the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia until 1966, when it was transferred to the Penn Museum, where it is presently curated.

Morton's theories were very popular in his day, and he was a highly respected physician and scientist. The anthropologist Aleš Hrdlička called Morton "the father of American physical anthropology". Crispin Bates has noted that Morton's "systematic justification" for the separation of races, along with the work of Louis Agassiz, was also used by those who favoured slavery in the United States, with the Charleston Medical Journal noting at his death that "We of the South should consider him as our benefactor for aiding most materially in giving to the negro his true position as an inferior race."

Craniology
Morton claimed in his Crania Americana that the Caucasians had the biggest brains, averaging 87 cubic inches (1,426 cc), Indians were in the middle with an average of 80 cubic inches (1,344 cc) and Negroes had the smallest brains with an average of 78 cubic inches (1,278 cc). Morton believed that the skulls of each race were so different that a wise creator from the beginning had created each race and positioned them in separate homelands to dwell in.

Morton believed that cranial capacity determined intellectual ability, and he used his craniometric evidence in conjunction with his analysis of anthropological literature then available to argue in favor of a racial hierarchy which put Caucasians on the top rung and Africans on the bottom. His skull measurements (by volume) then came to serve as "evidence" for racial stereotypes. He described the Caucasian as "distinguished by the facility with which it attains the highest intellectual endowments"; Native Americans were described as "averse to cultivation, and slow in acquiring knowledge; restless, revengeful, and fond of war, and wholly destitute of maritime adventure" and the Africans he described as "joyous, flexible, and indolent; while the many nations which compose this race present a singular diversity of intellectual character, of which the far extreme is the lowest grade of humanity".

Morton's followers, particularly Josiah C. Nott and George Gliddon in their monumental tribute to Morton's work, Types of Mankind (1854), carried Morton's ideas further and backed up his findings which supported the notion of polygenism – the premise that the different races were separately created by God. The publication of Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species in 1859 changed the nature of the scholarly debate.

Morton amassed over 1,000 human skulls. Some of the skulls that Morton collected and measured include those of enslaved people. Morton amassed his collection of human skulls when he worked at the Academy of Natural Sciences. The collection was transferred to the University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology in 1966. In 2021, the University of Pennsylvania Museum apologized for the unethical collection and promised to repatriate the remains of the people whose skulls were collected by Morton. The museum has promised to provide burials for 13 skulls of Black Philadelphians. In January 2024, 19 skulls from the Morton collection were interred in two mausolea in Eden Cemetery in Collingdale, Pennsylvania.

Allegations of bias in data collection and interpretation
In a 1978 paper and later in The Mismeasure of Man (1981), Stephen Jay Gould asserted that Morton had, perhaps because of an unconscious bias, selectively reported data, manipulated sample compositions, made analytical errors, and mismeasured skulls in order to support his prejudicial views on intelligence differences between different populations. Gould's book became widely read and Morton came to be considered one of the most prominent cases of the effects of unconscious bias in data collection, and as one of the main figures in the early history of scientific racism.

Subsequently, two separate studies of Morton's data and methods, one conducted in 1988 and the other in 2011, argued that Gould had overstated or misrepresented the case, and that Morton's measurements were essentially correct. In the latter study, entitled "The Mismeasure of Science: Stephen Jay Gould versus Samuel George Morton on Skulls and Bias" and authored by six anthropologists, it was concluded that the bias came from Gould, who failed to examine and remeasure the crania in order to determine Morton's level of accuracy. However, this study was reviewed in an editorial in Nature, which recommended a degree of caution, stating "the critique leaves the majority of Gould's work unscathed," and noted that "because they couldn't measure all the skulls, they do not know whether the average cranial capacities that Morton reported represent his sample accurately." The journal stated that Gould's opposition to racism may have biased his interpretation of Morton's data, but also noted that "Lewis and his colleagues have their own motivations. Several in the group have an association with the University of Pennsylvania, to whom Morton donated his collection of skulls, and have an interest in seeing the valuable but understudied skull collection freed from the stigma of bias and did not accept Gould's theory "that the scientific method is inevitably tainted by bias."

A 2014 review of the paper by University of Pennsylvania philosophy professor Michael Weisberg, tended to support Gould's original accusations, concluding that "there is prima facie evidence of a racial bias in Morton's measurements". Weisberg concludes that although Gould did commit mistakes in his own treatment, Morton's work "remains a cautionary example of racial bias in the science of human differences".

Research based on the discovery of some of Morton's original data by University of Pennsylvania anthropology doctoral student Paul Wolff Mitchell in 2018 argues that Morton was nevertheless guilty of bias, though not in data collection. Mitchell argues that Morton's interpretation of his data was arbitrary and tendentious; he investigated averages and ignored variations in skull size so large that there was significant overlap. A contemporary of Morton, Friedrich Tiedemann, had collected almost identical skull data and drawn conclusions opposite to Morton's on the basis of this overlap, arguing strongly against any conception of a racial hierarchy.

Evolving views on race of the Egyptians
Samuel Morton addressed several letters to George Gliddon and stated that he modified many of his old views on ancient Egypt believing them to be similar to Barabra but not Negro.

On 26 February 1846 he wrote:

"I am more than ever confirmed in my old sentiment, that Northern Africa was peopled by an indigenous and aboriginal people, who were dispossessed by Asiatic tribes. These aborigines could not have been Negroes, because the latter were never adapted to the climate, and are nowhere now, nor ever have been, inhabitants of these latitudes. Were they Berabra? - or some better race, more nearly allied to the Arabian race?"

In another letter to Gliddon, December 14, 1849:

"By the hands of the person to whom you confided them, I last night received Lepsius's "Chronologie," and the tin case of fac-simile drawings. These, when studied in connection with the Egyptian heads [skulls], and especially with the small series sent me [from Memphis] by your brother William [seventeen in number, and very ancient,], compel me to recant so much of my published opinions as respects the origin of the Egyptians. They never came from Asia, but are the indigenous or aboriginal inhabitants of the valley of the Nile. I have taken this position in my letter to Mr. J.R. Bartlett (New York Ethnological Soc. Journal, I.): every day has verified it, and your drawings settle it forever in my mind. It has cost me a mental struggle to acknowledge this conviction, but I can withhold it no longer."

In another letter to Gliddon, January 30, 1850:

"You allude to my altered views in Ethnology; but it all consists in regarding the Egyptian race as the indigenous people of the valley of the Nile. Not Asiatics in any sense of the word, but autocthones of the country, and the authors of their own civilization. This view, which you will recollect is that of Champollion, Heeren, and others [excepting only that they do not apply the word indigenous to the Egyptians], in nowise conflicts with their Caucasian position; for the Caucasian group had many primordial centres, of which the Egyptians represent one."

In a letter to Mr. Bartlett on Dec. 1, 1846, he wrote:

"My later investigations have confirmed me in the opinion, that the valley of the Nile was inhabited by an indigenous race, before the invasion of the Hamitic and other Asiatic nations; and that this primeval people, who occupied the whole of Northern Africa, bore much the same relation to the Berber or Berabra tribes of Nubia, that the Saracens of the middle ages bore to their wandering and untutored, yet cognate brethren, the Bedouins of the desert."

Works

 * “Observations on Cornine, (an Alkaline Principle, recently obtained from the bark of Cornus Florida, By George W. Carpenter of Philadelphia).” The Philadelphia Journal of the Medical and Physical Sciences 11 [n. s. 2]:195–198, 1825.
 * “Description of the Fossil Shells characterizing the Atlantic Secondary Formation of New-Jersey and Delaware; including four new species.” Read on December 11, 1827 and January 1, 1828. Journal of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia 6 (1): 72–73, 1829.
 * “Geological Observations on the Secondary, Tertiary, and Alluvial Formations of the Atlantic Coast of the United States of America arranged from the notes of Lardiner Vanuxem,” Read on January 8, 1828. Journal of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia 6 (1): 59–71, 1829.
 * “On the analogy which exists between the Marl of New Jersey, Etc. and the Chalk formation of Europe,” Letter from S. G. Morton, MD to the Editor, dated February 14, 1832. American Journal of Science and Arts 22 (1): 90–91, 1832.
 * Illustrations of Pulmonary Consumption: Its Anatomical Characters, Causes, Symptoms and Treatment. Philadelphia: Key & Biddle, 1834.
 * Crania Americana; or, A Comparative View of the Skulls of Various Aboriginal Nations of North and South America: To which is Prefixed An Essay on the Varieties of the Human Species. Philadelphia: J. Dobson, 1839.
 * Catalogue of the Skulls of Man and the Inferior Animals in the Collection of Samuel George Morton, Philadelphia: Turner and Fisher, 1840.
 * A Memoir of William Maclure, Esq. Philadelphia: T. K. and P. G. Collins, 1841.
 * Editor for Benjamin Ellis. The Medical Formulary: Being a Collection of Prescriptions Derived from the Writings and Practice of Many of the Most Eminent Physicians in America and Europe. Philadelphia: Lea and Blanchard, 1842.
 * Editor for John Makintosh. Principles of Pathology and Practice of Medicine, 4th American Ed. Philadelphia, Lindsay and Blakiston, 1844.
 * An Inquiry into the Distinctive Characteristics of the Aboriginal Race of America. Philadelphia: John Penington, 1844.
 * Catalogue of the Skulls of Man and the Inferior Animals in the Collection of Samuel George Morton, 2nd Ed. Philadelphia: F. Turner, 1843.
 * Crania Aegyptiaca; or Observations on Egyptian Ethnography Derived from Anatomy, History and the Monuments. Philadelphia: John Pennington, 1844.
 * “On a supposed new species of Hippopotamus,” Meeting of February 27, 1844. Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia 2 (2): 14–17, 1844.
 * Hybridity in Animals and Plants, Considered in Reference to the Question of the Unity of the Human Species. New Haven: B.L. Hamlen, 1847.
 * An Illustrated System of Human Anatomy. Philadelphia: Grigg, Elliot and Co., 1849.
 * Catalogue of the Skulls of Man and the Inferior Animals in the Collection of Samuel George Morton, 3rd Ed. Philadelphia: Merrihew and Thompson, 1849.
 * “On the Size of the Brain in the Various Races and Families of Man.” In Types of Mankind, 8th Ed. Josiah Nott and George Gliddon, eds. Pp. 298–327. Philadelphia: J. B. Lippencott - London: Trübner and Co., 1850.
 * “Physical Type of the American Indians.” In Historical and Statistical Information Respecting the History, Condition, and Prospects of the Indian Tribes of the United States. Vol. II, Pp. 315–335. Henry Schoolcraft. Philadelphia: Lippincott, Grambo, 1851.
 * “Exerpta from Morton’s Inedited Manuscripts.” In Types of Mankind. Josiah Knot and George Gliddon, eds., pp. 298–327. Philadelphia: J. B. Lippencott - London: Trübner and Co., 1855.

title: Samuel George Morton


text:
Bombardier–Alstom HHP-8

The Bombardier–Alstom HHP-8 (High Horse Power 8000) is a twin-cab electric locomotive built for Amtrak and MARC by a consortium of Bombardier and Alstom. Its electrical system was based on Alstom's BB 36000 locomotive.

Due to a limited number of locomotives produced and reliability issues leading to high maintenance costs, Amtrak retired all its HHP-8s after only ten years of service. MARC initially planned to follow suit but ultimately chose to refurbish their HHP-8 fleet between 2017 and 2018.

Background
Amtrak assumed control of almost all private sector intercity passenger rail service in the United States on May 1, 1971. The centerpiece of Amtrak's system was the Northeast Corridor, a 457 mi line between Washington, D.C., and Boston, Massachusetts, via New York City. The line was electrified from Washington through New York to New Haven, Connecticut; diesel locomotives handled trains over the remaining 157 mi between New Haven and Boston. In the 1990s Amtrak rebuilt and electrified the route as part of the project which established high-speed Acela Express service between Washington and Boston. The extension of electrification between New Haven and Boston meant that Amtrak would need additional electric locomotives to pull conventional trains east of New Haven. Neither of Amtrak's existing designs, the EMD AEM-7 and GE E60, were still in production, and the latter was slated for retirement. Amtrak chose to have Bombardier and Alstom, makers of the Acela Express, produce a visually-similar derivative for conventional service.

Design
The HHP-8 measures 67 ft long by 10 ft wide and stands 14 ft tall (from the rail to the locomotive roof, excluding the pantographs). This was 16 ft longer than the AEM-7, though still shorter than the E60. The locomotive weighs 220000 lb. The carbody is stainless steel; the locomotive has a 6 MJ crash energy absorbance structure.

Reflecting the varied electrification schemes on the Northeast Corridor the locomotives were designed to operate at three different voltages: 25 kV 60 Hz AC (used between Boston and New Haven), 12.5 kV 60 Hz AC (used between New Haven and New York), and 12 kV 25 Hz AC (used between New York and Washington). The electrical traction system is directly derived from the system used on Alstom's BB 36000 Astride locomotives; this includes four 1.5 MW three phase asynchronous traction motors powered by GTO based inverters, with one inverter per motor; the electric system also allows regenerative and rheostatic braking. The locomotives were designed for up to 135 mph operation but are actually limited in service to Federal Railroad Administration Tier 1 standards, operating up to 125 mph.

History
Amtrak ordered 15 HHP-8s in 1996 at the same time as its Acela Express trainsets. The HHP-8s have external styling that is similar to the Acela power cars, but are designed to operate as independent locomotives, hauling conventional passenger rolling stock. The units supplemented the EMD AEM-7s and allowed Amtrak to commence retirement of the GE E60. Amtrak did not purchase the locomotives outright but leased them from Philip Morris Capital.

The locomotive's original type designation was HHL-8, for "High Horsepower Locomotive, 8,000 (nominal) horsepower". This was subsequently changed to HHP-8.

In conjunction with the Amtrak order, MARC also acquired six HHP-8s, which MARC uses on their Penn Line service along the Northeast Corridor between Perryville and Washington, DC.

Amtrak operated its HHP-8s on the Northeast Corridor between Boston and Washington, DC; racking up approximately 1,000,000 miles each in service (based on 2009 figure).

In 2002, Amtrak's fleet of 15 units was temporarily withdrawn along with the Acela Express trains due to cracks in components of the trucks.

Amtrak retirement
Amtrak's HHP-8s suffered from low reliability. As a result, after only one decade in service, their replacement was considered, concurrent with the replacement of the older AEM-7 locomotive fleet, since a large order for a standardized fleet would have price economies, and the resultant fleet would have lower overall maintenance costs. A replacement fleet of 70 locomotives starting delivery in 2012 was planned, with HHP-8s kept as a reserve in the short term.

In October 2010, Amtrak ordered 70 Siemens ACS-64 locomotives to replace both the HHP-8 and the older AEM-7 locomotives, with deliveries beginning in early 2013. Amtrak retired its last HHP-8 on February 9, 2015. All units are now stored; to avoid duplicate numbering with ACS-64 units 650–664, Amtrak renumbered its retired HHP-8s to 680–694. Philip Morris sued Amtrak in 2019, alleging that Amtrak had cannibalized eight of the fifteen locomotives for parts, in violation of the terms of the lease. The two parties settled the lawsuit in 2021; the terms were not disclosed.

Amtrak conversion to cab cars
In an effort to extend the life of its existing fleet until the arrival of the Airo fleet, Amtrak began testing a converted HHP-8 locomotive as a cab car in 2023. These converted units are designated as HHP-8C.

The project initially aimed to convert two locomotives for expanded Ethan Allen Express service in 2022. While the first conversion (originally numbered 691, initially renumbered 90691 and later 9750) faced initial setbacks, it was ultimately successful. As of July 2024, Amtrak is considering expanding the program to include up to eight total conversions.

MARC refurbishment
While reports in 2016 indicated that MARC planned to retire their HHP-8 locomotives and replace them with Siemens Charger locomotives, MARC instead started a refurbishment program for its HHP-8s in 2017. Issues with equipment cooling that kept the HHP-8 locomotives from properly working were addressed.

, the first HHP-8 reconditioned under this program had been delivered and was undergoing successful testing.

, the first HHP-8 reconditioned was running for three weeks without major issue (a software issue was corrected in this time). A second HHP-8 was being reconditioned.

, the second HHP-8 had the most unreliable power control components replaced and was back in service. The remainder of the upgrade on this locomotive was to be done by the end of 2018. MARC planned to upgrade the remaining HHP-8 locomotives in their fleet.

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

title: Bombardier–Alstom HHP-8


text:
Talk:Christianity in India

Christianity In india is significantly underreported
There is widespread beleif that christianity in india is signficantly underreported - as many epople are not stating there are a follower of Christ becuase they are living in fear from their hindu and muslim famalies can we all agree on this so can we add a section about this please? Josephjoseph230 (talk) 13:42, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

 * @Josephjoseph230 Which reliable sources have published this information? —C.Fred (talk) 13:47, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * here are some reliable sources
 * https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/india-post-christian/
 * this is a website on it being underreported
 * if you require i can give you lots of christians living in fear in india because there are lots of those Josephjoseph230 (talk) 03:10, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @Josephjoseph230 The Gospel Coalition does not appear to be an independent source, so it is not usable for the article. —C.Fred (talk) 03:45, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * its a newspaper
 * its fully independent and single
 * i really dont get why you guys are so strict Josephjoseph230 (talk) 07:50, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * No, it is not — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 09:09, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed
Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from https://www.baselius.ac.in/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/MRPSUMMARY.pdf. Copied material has been removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, provided it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. NotAGenious (talk) 06:55, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Inquisitions Forced Conversion Narrative by Hindu fascists
About this edit: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Diff/1185080586

I have flagged the questionable material added by Varoon (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Diff/1184112020). The user has been abusing Wikipedia for their hindu majoritarianist political agenda known as hindutva. His anti-Christian bias in their other edits are obvious. With impunity, he has been whitewashing the Hindu fascist BJP political party for its involvement in anti-Christian violence: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Diff/1184577643

Inquisition based bogey/ narrative of forced conversions by Hindu majoritarianists and fascists. It has been the anti-freedom of religion and anti-conversion smear campaign; driven by lobbies of Hindu fascism backing the current administration. It was started by Hindu Maharashtri supremacists such as AK Priolkar who wrote the dubious the Goa Inquisition book. They wanted the Konkani language suppressed and replaced as Mahratti and Guzerati in Goa and Damaon; as it has happened in the Konkan Division occupied by Maharashtra. The supremacists also wanted Goa erased from the map, by having it occupied by pro-Hindutva Mahraashtra political parties.

A Rediff source has been used. If I remember correctly, Rediff was a listed unreliable as per WP:RS.

Also, according to Teotonio in the sources used by Varoon (https://books.google.com/books?id=vtf1eRE8FC8C&q=persecution): Oppression of Hindus and demolition of temples was done directly by Portuguese colonialists and started before the Goan Inquisition. Christian Inquisition has been mistaken for Hindu persecution because of the overwhelming YouTube and Twitter smear campaign; run by Hindu fascists and majoritarianists such as Shef Vaidya a mouthpiece and Maharashtri member of RSS.

The Inquisition dealt with Christians only and punished only those Hindus who used force or violence to stop conversions to Christianity; inorder to protect the Christian minority. 106.79.207.29 (talk) 13:21, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Christianity in India


text:
Category:Cities in France

This category is limited to urban centers of at least 100,000 inhabitants.

title: Category:Cities in France


text:
File:Grolsch-Logo.png

L.S.

Wij drinken reeds zeer lange tijd uitsluitend Grolsch, Premium Pilsner sinds 1615 Wij zien nooit eens een Grolsch bierglas bij de reclame of op een andere manier te verkrijgen Heeft U een oplossing? Groet A.Verheijden Stekene België

Summary
Logo of Grolsch brewery.

title: File:Grolsch-Logo.png


text:
Talk:Master-General of the Ordnance

Rank
The current Master-General of the Ordnance is a major general (Maj. Gen. P. Gilchrist) - see here. I think this has been the case since the services' separate logistics and procurement agencies got combined under the Chief of Defence Logistics. Franey 14:42, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Henry Lee of Ditchley
Is Master of the Ordnance (as claimed in the above's wikipage) different to Master-General of the Ordnance?Aatomic1 08:54, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I apologise if I have offended by adding but I am not 100% clear where the above fits. Aatomic1 19:13, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Duplication
There seem to be 2 parallel pages, this one and Master-General of the Ordnance (United Kingdom). Surely we don't need both, and they should be merged? I'm not aware of the history behind the various reshuffles which took place in June, but it looks to me as if 2 pages were left where there ought to be only one (with appropriate redirection from the other if necessary). Confusingly, the talk page from the other page redirects to this talk page here, although the main article doesn't redirect. Perhaps someone who understands the background can tidy the situation up? David Biddulph (talk) 13:33, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I've redirected for the moment. GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:39, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

François de La Rochefoucauld, Marquis de Montendre
An unlogged in editor has inserted that François de La Rochefoucauld, Marquis de Montendre held thje post in 1725. This seems highly improbable, since he hass a French name and title. Has some one introduced information on a similar French post into this British article? I have not reverted this as I could not be certain. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:32, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Thomas Gargrave
Sir Thomas Gargrave appears briefly in Shakespeare's Henry VI. He died in the Siege of Orleans in around 1428, which seems to fit well with this chronology. I had written a small article on him which which was rejected because of his inadequate military record. I should think that inclusion in Shakespeare would be adequate for inclusion in the Wikipedia alongside such luminaries as Snooki, but perhaps the Master General of the Ordnance would qualify? I do not know enough about military titles to say if he is part of this series. One source (which includes a Gargrave Master of the Ordnance from sometime around: 1413-1422: page 226 of: http://books.google.com/books?id=cs4KAAAAYAAJ Fotoguzzi (talk) 13:56, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Added Father/son Gargraves. They seem to fit the sequence, but perhaps there is better documentation. Fotoguzzi (talk) 14:24, 12 January 2013 (UTC)\
 * Removing the two Gargrave entries because they could be e. g., Lord Salisbury's Master of the Ordnance instead of Master of the King's Ordnance.

 * Sir John Gargrave, Knight
 * Sir Thomas Gargrave, Knight Fotoguzzi (talk) 15:19, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Confusing
The Introduction says the position was abolished in 1855. Then the History section says it was reinstituted in 1913. But what was it reinstituted as? What did they do in the interim? Nick Beeson (talk) 19:47, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Master-General of the Ordnance. 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/20160304112744/http://www.gulabin.com/armynavy/pdf/Army%20Commands%201860-.pdf to http://www.gulabin.com/armynavy/pdf/Army%20Commands%201860-.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304112744/http://www.gulabin.com/armynavy/pdf/Army%20Commands%201860-.pdf to http://www.gulabin.com/armynavy/pdf/Army%20Commands%201860-.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304112744/http://www.gulabin.com/armynavy/pdf/Army%20Commands%201860-.pdf to http://www.gulabin.com/armynavy/pdf/Army%20Commands%201860-.pdf

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:00, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Master-General of the Ordnance. 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/20100204084632/http://www.remuseum.org.uk/corpshistory/rem_corps_part2.htm to http://www.remuseum.org.uk/corpshistory/rem_corps_part2.htm

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:46, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Leslie Hore-Belisha
I have changed the reference to Lord Hore-Belisha to Leslie Hore-Belisha. He did not become a lord until well after the period he was Secretary of War and when he abolished the post of Master-General of the Ordnance, so it is inappropriate to describe him as a lord in this context. Dunarc (talk) 20:16, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

title: Talk:Master-General of the Ordnance


text:
Talk:FulDC

Vfd
On December 24, 2004, this article was nominated for deletion. The result was merge and redirect to DCPlusPlus. See Votes for deletion/FulDC for a record of the discussion. —Korath (Talk) 14:42, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

title: Talk:FulDC


text:
Talk:Vaucanson

This page should point to the Jacques de Vaucanson article.

title: Talk:Vaucanson


text: User talk:213.16.249.188

title: User talk:213.16.249.188


text:
Talk:Grolsch Brewery

USA
This section seems to contradict itself. The opening sentence says Grolsch is imported by Anheuser Busch, and then goes on to say that is no longer true. Does anyway know for sure what is going on so this can be clarified? 72.237.48.100 (talk) 15:13, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Move
For consistency, I suggest this page be moved to Grolsche Bierbrouwerij N.V. --Stlemur 15:08, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

The IBA is a subsidiary of Anheuser-Busch. From their webpage: " *Import Craft Specialty Brands Alliance is a Trademark of Anheuser-Busch, Inc. " 66.234.34.179 01:14, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Bottle
Under the bottle section, it notes that the domestic bottle is 45cl, whilst the export is 467ml. It then states that the new domestic bottle is 10% larger, at 33cl. This is obviously a contradiction. I've only seen old the brown bottles which are indeed 45cl; perhaps either a tourist or a Dutch person can clarify this? Ieatlint 09:54, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I sold both domestic and export Grolsch at my old bar. The discussion is about different kinds of bottles. Grolsch is available in a 250ml bottle, a 330ml bottle, a 45cl bottle, and a 467ml bottle. The "10%" figure refers to the 330ml bottle ... it used to be 300ml. Kww 23:12, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Product Availability in the USA
In the Boston area for the last month (October 2008) I understand from speaking with several Liquor store operators that they have been unable to obtain Grolsch due to a distributor problem. So as a long time Grolsch drinker I am sadly no longer able to purchase Grolsch.

Does anyone have any information on what the problem is with the distributor? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.217.184.103 (talk) 17:18, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

You can't have two No.2's unless it's a tie
Uh I am a HUGE fan and "promoter" of Wikipedia but dude, this is @#$%%!*& complicated. Anyway, this article and the one on Bavaria both claim their brands to be the No.2 brewry in Holland. Obviously, at least one of them must be wrong. (They do seem to agree at least that Heineken is No.1 Well, that's a start...)

So, somebody, sort this out, will you? Wikipedia gets enough UNDESERVED bad press without stuff like this.

Your enthusiastic and faithful friend.

69.157.27.190 (talk) 04:02, 31 December 2008 (UTC) (Did I do this right? I mean the buncha ~'s.)

 * Well technically the articles aren't inconsistent although obviously the situation isn't ideal. The Bavaria claim was made July 2007 in the context of a sponsorship deal while Grolsch's claim is 'current'.  It is possible that Grolsch have overtaken them since then.  However if this is the case then ideally the Grolsch article should have some time reference to distinguish it from the Bavaria date so I will add a citation marker. Betty Logan (talk) 04:27, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

SABMiller template
A wholly duplicative template has been removed which adds nothing to the main SABMiller template. There is an ongoing discussion on the talk page of that template and the secondary template was added improperly. Rangoon11 (talk) 22:02, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Brown Bottles
I have your bottles that are Brown — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.14.113.38 (talk) 23:21, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Grolsch Brewery. 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/20100302151948/http://blog-the-mark.org/ to http://blog-the-mark.org/

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:47, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Grolsch Brewery


text: Category:Pakistani archaeologists

title: Category:Pakistani archaeologists


text:
User talk:Cameowood

Click here to leave a message

Image Tagging Image:Script-analysis 3.png
Thanks for uploading Image:Script-analysis 3.png. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use GFDL-self to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. 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 unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. —Gabbe 16:57, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:Cameowood-2001.gif
Thanks for uploading Image:Cameowood-2001.gif. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use GFDL-self to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. 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 unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Shyam ( T / C ) 22:03, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:Vaucanson mechanical duck drums1738.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Vaucanson mechanical duck drums1738.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use GFDL-self to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. 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 unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Dethomas 01:26, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:Vaucanson2.jpeg
Thanks for uploading Image:Vaucanson2.jpeg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use GFDL-self to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. 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 unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Dethomas 01:27, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:Galley Method1.png
Thanks for uploading Image:Galley Method1.png. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use GFDL-self to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. 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 unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Shyam ( T / C ) 22:31, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Cameowood-2001.gif
Thank you for uploading Image:Cameowood-2001.gif. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. MER-C 10:32, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

title: User talk:Cameowood


text: Category:Pakistani engineers

title: Category:Pakistani engineers


text: Category:Pakistani people by occupation

title: Category:Pakistani people by occupation


text:
Barmah

Barmah is a town in the state of Victoria, Australia.

Barmah has the distinction of being located north of the border with the state of New South Wales. New South Wales is north of Victoria, with the border being the westward-flowing Murray River. However, just downstream of Barmah the Murray winds to the south and east for a short distance before resuming its westward course. The land within this length of river results in a small part of New South Wales being to the south of the Victorian town.

Barmah is near the largest river red gum forest in the world. The Barmah National Park is on the floodplain of the Murray River, and when it floods is an important breeding ground for Murray cod. The flood is enhanced by the geological features of the riverbed, as the channel narrows at an area known as the Barmah choke.

The Barmah Forest is listed under the Ramsar Convention for wetlands and, with various state forests in New South Wales, has been identified as an Important Bird Area. It is rich in bird species and is the breeding ground for the superb parrot, a species listed as vulnerable on the IUCN Red List.

History
The Barmah area was first settled in 1856 by Joseph Waldo Rice who established the Murray Fishing Company to supply fish for the gold mining region of Bendigo, Victoria. Barmah was, for a time beginning in the early 1880s, a prosperous centre, whose chief industry was sawmilling. There were two major sawmills; that of Robert Barbour on the N.S.W. side of the river, and James MacIntosh's and E. Whitely's on the Victorian side. Much of the timber was exported to India for piles and railway sleepers until a government prohibition of the export of redgum, which forced closure of the Barmah mills. Trade picked up later, with the expansion of the railway network and a new sawmill was opened by R. Evans, who shipped the sawn timber to Echuca on his steamboat, the Edwards.

A Barmah Post Office opened on 16 September 1876 and was renamed Barmah East in 1907, closing in 1951. Barmah Township Post Office opened on 2 May 1902.

Population
At the, Barmah had a population of 229. 87.8% of people were born in Australia and 90.8% of people only spoke English at home.

Ancient geography
The geography at Barmah is explained by a geological event that occurred 25,000 years ago, when an uplift of land along the Cadell Fault forced the Murray River onto a new course for 500 km. The river had to force its way through the Barmah choke taking over the Goulburn River in the process. The uplifted land that led to these changes is noticeable as a continuous, low, earthen embankment along the road leading into Barmah from the west, which may appear to the untrained eye as man-made.

title: Barmah


text: Category:Pakistani physicists

title: Category:Pakistani physicists


text:
Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion/User:Sam Spade/Detective agency

Why would Sam create such a page?

 * Because he felt a need, being a bit overwhelmed with the amount of requests for assistance he recieves as an AMA advocate
 * see Sam explain here and here and a reply from the AMA coordinator here.
 * These notes by Sam Spade

Why would EB oppose Sam in creating such a page?

 *
 * Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/Gay bathhouse
 * Talk:Gay_bathhouse/Archive_2
 * Talk:Gay bathhouse/Archive 3
 * Talk:Anal_sex
 *
 * These notes by Sam Spade

Radiant_* 15:07, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * I fail to see the relevance of anal sex and gay bathhouses. Instead, it may be relevant to look at Exploding Boy's comments here: Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2004/Candidate_statements/Endorsements/Sam_Spade

 * My opposition to this page and this organization has nothing to do with the articles above, as Sam claims. I think I've made my reasons quite clear.  See: here for details.

 * In particular, I'm concerned about this quote, taken from the introduction to the relevant page: "We collect data regarding dubious persons and circumstances, and put them to good use at the appropriate time and place."

 * What does this mean? At best Sam et. al. are making preemptive assumptions about Wikipedia users.  Assuming guilt or indeed, creating a list of "dubious persons" is inappropriate behaviour for an AMA Advocate.  If Sam feels "overwhelmed with the amount of requests for assistance he recieves" (a claim I find highly "dubious," given the suspicion with which he's widely viewed), perhaps he should consider taking a break, or, alternatively, perhaps the AMA needs to recruit more advocates.  Exploding Boy 15:45, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

 * Added: I also object to the stated requirements for "membership" in the organization, which include a desire and willingness to "prosecute" "problem users" and to "assist and protect fellow detectives, lay users and anons," and to the fact that Sam appears to be farming out AMA work to non-AMA members. Really, if Sam's so busy the simple solution is to decline to take on further cases.  If this is an "extension" of Sam's AMA activities, as he claims on the relevant page, then this organization should be sanctioned and its activities monitored by the AMA, and membership should be limited to current AMA members.  Exploding Boy 15:52, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

Have a look at my talk page and its archives for evidence of such requests. Sam Spade Apply now, exciting opportunities available at Spade & Archer! 15:47, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sam Spade's Detective Agency's record so far
1. If this is any indication, Sam's agency is off to the sad start I and others were concerned about. Sam continues to rub salt in the wound left by his vulgar email by insisting on making it a subject of "investigation" of his ill conceived "Detective Agency" despite the facts that I did not actually ask him to take the matter up and that I've now asked him to cease several times yet he refuses to drop it. This is going exactly like I feared. --FeloniousMonk 14:19, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * I don't believe the anti lot want to stop Sam's organisation. I believe they just want to stop other wiki users from monitoring it. Please show me any evidence to the contrary, --SqueakBox 16:16, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

 * What kind of evidence would you suggest..? — Asbestos | Talk  16:25, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Its less complicated than that, they simply dislike me, and feel the need to waste everybodies time w personality politics. I don't think there is any evidence to the contrary. Sam Spade Apply now, exciting opportunities available at Spade & Archer! 16:28, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * What I dislike is Sam's misbehavior, not Sam. That behavior is a matter record here at wikipedia for anyone to discover despite Sam's hypocritical claim that there is no evidence of it. One need only look and the list of evidence compiled here for a start. There is listed links to the record showing Sam's admitted to intentionally exploiting a policy loophole so he could side-step the civility policy, cynically starting a frivolous "copyvio" claim, etc. There's also the matter of his less than sterling record of his previous user account, JackLynch.
 * As for why I choose to confront Sam when he acts badly, call me old fashioned, but I still believe that when you wrong somebody, you have a moral obligation to atone for it. It's called justice. A quaint notion, I know. I also believe that hypocrisy always demands a response, and for anyone inclined to chafe at hypocrisy Sam's own words yield plenty of opportunities. I state here why I believe trolls and miscreants should be confronted. If Sam finds an occasional zen slap inconvenient, then he should moderate his future behavior and atone for his past misdeeds instead of just digging his hole deeper. FeloniousMonk 17:30, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * In either case, if you have a problem with Sam's actions, ther proper channel is to create an RFC, not to delete their User pages. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 16:29, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

 * I endorse DropDeadGorgias view, --SqueakBox 18:17, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

2. Another instance of Sam Spade's Detective Agency's bad bahavior, this time Sam making a trollish and untrue claim:

3. One more instance of bad behavior at Sam Spade's Detective Agency. As pointed out in the link I provide above in no. 2, on the agency's discussion page Sam intentionally mischaracterized a statement I posted to the "I don't like your page, will you remove it?" section by moving it to a new section he titles "I don't like Sam Spade, what should I do?" The the net effect of mischaracterizing my statement is to imply that the cause of my actions are not prompted by his insulting email he sent me, but because I simply dislike him. Thus he attempts to deflect a legitimate complaint by marginalizing it. As I've said before, I dislike Sam's behavior, not the man. Next Sam trollishly reverted my rebuttal: Clearly if Sam is going to make oblique commentary on my personal motives, I'm entitled to a rebuttal. If he's going to start right off by denying me that right, who else then is going to find themselves denied the right to confront their accusers when and where the accusation is made? This sort of behavior by Sam is exactly what must be guarded against when he forms an unsanctioned, organized, evidence-gathering group. Only those investigated under the PATRIOT Act are allowed less recourse for rebuttal than those who find themselves on Sam Spade's Detective Agency's pages it seems. FeloniousMonk 23:03, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Instances of editors comments deleted from User:Sam_Spade/Detective_agency

 * 1)
 * 2)

observation
On Oct 7, 2004 on [this page] Exploding Boy says "I take issue with this type of sweeping yet vague pronouncement. Who are these "frequent rule breakers" you speak of? Who are these admins, this so-called "in-crowd" who "are of the opinion that admins are above the rules"? Who are these users who "bully and malign" newbies? Who are these "well-liked longterm regulars who do as they please while the community looks the other way"? Sorry, but I think this is all a load of codswallop, as my grandmother used to say.

I've read a lot, over the last year, of complaints like these, but have yet to see any credible evidence that anything like this is really going on. I do know of a few users who are less than collegiate with other users, and a few people who like to grandstand and/or behave as though they own certain articles, but generally other users managage to keep them contained. I don't know of any admin who has gone on the type of rampage you suggest above, and frankly, I think this is just a lot of hot air designed to help you in your bid for sysopping. That's fair enough; you're allowed to campaign on your own behalf. But if you're going to slander 20-odd users (the ones who've voted against you) then you'd better be prepared to back up your wild claims with some hard evidence."

On Sam's looking for hard evidence page Sam says "Our goal is to provide top-notch investigative service to our clients, promote justice and discourage corruption, and to combine our efforts as effectively as possible. We collect data regarding dubious persons and circumstances, and put them to good use at the appropriate time and place."

Is it ok to thank Boy for giving Sam this idea? 4.250.27.74 19:32, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Here's another observation. 4.250.27.74 has made a grand total of 5 edits to Wikipedia, and 2 of them are on this issue.  I'm forced to wonder whether s/he is part of Sam's Army, posting anonymously to avoid being identified.  Getting involved in this type of debate, and showing such easy familiarity with Wikipedia is suspicious for a brand new (started in April) user.  I can see (and this user's post demonstrates clearly) the vast potential for abuse inherent in Sam's organization.

 * Here's another observation. The role of the AMA is supposed to be advocating on behalf of members.  They do not exist to be some sort of Wiki-CIA, gathering information on suspect users in an effort to crush them.  They do not exist to protect a certain class of Wikipedians.  They are suppsed to provide "a better understanding of the dispute resolution process at any stage of a controversy, or really just for a clarification" (this according to their FAQ page).   In fact, the more I read the AMA's pages, the more I think Sam's violating several of their principles.

 * At any rate, I can see this is going to go nowhere. I may proceed with an RFC, if only to get a better understanding of where Wikipedia stands on this issue.  Exploding Boy 20:58, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

 * Reading your post above, I'm unclear exactly what you think is and isn't "codswallop." I think what you are getting at here is that that are no instances of well-liked longterm regulars behaving trollishly while the powerful in the community looks the other way.

 * If that is that is what you meant, then one quick read of the evidence of Sam's own recent misdeeds and the related conversations, and noting the list of the influential contained therein who've not only excused Sam's bad acts but in so doing enabled them, stands as "hard evidence" to the contrary. --FeloniousMonk 21:11, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This is precisely why this so-called "agency" is problematic. The comments above were made months ago on an unrelated topic. They were placed here out of context and without explanation by a user I've never heard of or seen before, for no apparent reason. Exploding Boy 21:51, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

 * Seemed rather an applicable display of the hypocracy involved in opposing my investigations, but hey, not everybody see's eye to eye on everything. Oh and the anon is obviously an old hand who chose to edit anonymously on this topic, his right according to the Foundation issues, which are kinda important... have a look sometime. Sam Spade Apply now, exciting opportunities available at Spade & Archer! 11:36, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm well aware of the right to edit anyonymously. I, along with many other users, oppose this. But that's beside the point. You're ignoring every important issue brought up in this discussion. Exploding Boy 16:50, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

Most 4.250.xxx.xxx edits that I have run into are mine. I first ran into Sam on far-right. I'm currently trying to improve atheism (I'm an atheist. I believe Sam is a pantheism believer.) See mixed economy for me at my best and early edits on the discussion page of Jeff Gannon for me at my worst (too quick to anger). 4.250.132.149 17:31, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Right on, I had no idea. Glad to have you, by any chance would you like to form a user account? Either way, please keep up the fine work. Sam Spade Apply now, exciting opportunities available at Spade & Archer! 20:06, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)


text:
Talk:Adjutant general

Seniority in the UK
I would dispute the statement that the AG is second only to the CGS in the British Army. That position must surely belong to the Commander-in-Chief Land Command, who, like the CGS, is a full general: the AG is only a lieutenant general. Franey 14:50, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Things have apparently changed recently (not for the better, sadly), but the AG certainly was the second most senior officer and was always a full general. But then, so was the QMG. -- Necrothesp 15:06, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Copyright violation on Institute of Heraldry
I just removed the entire section labeled as "Heraldry" in that it was blatant cut and paste from this website. The user who posted this material has been warned about cutting and pasting entire sections from other sites. -Husnock 05:53, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Adjutant General/Adjutant general
Why is the article name "Adjutant general" when throughout the article it refers to "Adjutant General"? Zarboki 06:54, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

In the Society of Jesus?
I have removed the reference to the Jesuits (or 'Society of Jesus') as it was erroneous. Those in charge of advising the Superior General are called 'Assistants' and not 'Adjudants'. Zerged (talk) 22:39, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Adjutant General Branch
In the U.S. Army all personnel that carry jobs that deal with Personnel Records or Records Keeping fall under the AG Branch. Starting at the Battalion Headquarters every level of command has its own Adjutant, who is otherwise known as the S-1, or the G-1 at the higher levels of Command. Every Adjutant has his or her own cabinet of AG soldiers and NCO's (Non-Commisioned Officers). Also, in most cases the CSM (Command Sergeant Major) also falls under the S1 Section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 214.13.192.187 (talk) 16:17, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Adjutant general. 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/20130606180603/http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/LAND-FORCES/Today/225-Army-Headquarters.html to http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/LAND-FORCES/Today/225-Army-Headquarters.html

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) 09:41, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Adjutant general. 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/20120427072644/http://www.ngaus.org/content.asp?bid=142 to http://www.ngaus.org/content.asp?bid=142

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:48, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Adjutant general


text: Category:Pakistani scientists

title: Category:Pakistani scientists


text:
Talk:Hyperspace (disambiguation)

Physics vs. science fiction
With all due respect to the concept in physics, isn't "hyperspace" in the science fiction sense much more common? In fact, didn't the term originate in SF? (I have no references either way, mind you, and neither do the articles.) "What links here" suggests that authors linking to this title want the SF concept far more often than this relatively unknown concept in physics—the fact that this is "serious" while the SF concept is "not serious" (and that's quite contentious) notwithstanding. JRM 14:53, 2005 Apr 11 (UTC)

 * I agree. Although the physics page is genuine science (unlike the SF concept), almost all people searching wikipedia for "Hyperspace" are looking for an explanation of hyperspace as it is used in science fiction. Sam271828

 * This article has in fact now been rewritten as a disambiguation page, as suggested way back in June 2005. How do you like that?  Sigh... ---CH

Real-life hyperdrive soon?
Back to reality.

What to think about that. Seriously Take a leap into hyperspace

Reply to David Latapie 01:34, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

 * Hi, David, anon using IP address 206.78.245.3, etc.: New Scientist is a science news magazine, not a research journal, so it is incorrect to say
 * New Scientist released a paper based on Heim Theory (developed by Burkhard Heim)
 * It may even be dubious to refer to Heim theory in the context of encyclopedia articles on scientific topics, where the technical scientific meaning of theory is presumably the one intended, since AFAIK every physicist who has examined Heim's papers have found them inscrutable. I haven't looked at them in any detail myself, but I did notice some disturbing signs in the existing article on Heim theory, such as the unmotivated "field equation" which refers to a radial coordinate, which makes very little sense in formulating a field equation as most physicists understand that term (one would rather expect to see a covariant Lagrangian or something like that, at least if the alleged field equation is presented without further comment).
 * In general, all these articles mentioning Heim theory [sic] need to be rewritten to be much more cautious in calling these ideas (?) a "theory", and the article Heim theory needs to be rewritten by someone with a solid grasp of modern physics who can put this stuff in perspective. To judge from clues like the one I mentioned above, the present article (which is absurdly fawning in tone) was not written by someone with a good grasp of physics. ---CH 02:45, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

 * Hiem Theory has a very serious problem vis this issue. It is not a hyperspace theory it has been mislabeled as such but is in fact a hyper-dimensional space, something totally different. Proper traditional hyperspace as people like the early SF writers talked about is a linear Super-light space that is an extension of standard Relativity. In fact you can argue that it is not even an extension because Minkowski space-time already describes it though it labels it as the fourth dimension 'time'. As for the SciFi version being less serious its far more likely to be correct than most theories current physics is working on. In the end if Hyperspace theory isn't correct then Relativity isn't either, if it is then GR allows FTL cheats. In fact if Hyperspace proper actually exists then it rules out Heim theory completely except at zero energy, and vice versa. Lucien86 (talk) 02:03, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * BTW : GR has very serious problems with non-locality, I have talked to quite a few Relativists on this and they define time as moving with infinite velocity or being instantaneous - which makes it identical to classical Hyperspace. Lucien86 (talk) 02:19, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

What is the point of this article?
I have to agree with Sam: what is the point of this article? It certainly doesn't seem to reflect a solid grasp of the relevant math or physics: This article should probably deleted on the grounds of having no scientific content, and as a possible hoax article.---CH 02:58, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * The theory consists of the idea that our own universe is connected to other universes through wormholes, and all of the universes are found within "hyperspace". Not even wrong: there is no "theory" called "hyperspace", and whoever wrote this appears to be confusing at least two distinct concepts (sometimes called "wormhole" and "baby universes").
 * the null geodesics are continuous concentric spheres is nonsense: in both math (e.g., Riemannian geometry) and physics, geodesics are always curves; whoever wrote this appears to be confused about the geometrical nature of "dimensional reductions",
 * almost becoming an instanton: now I am beginning to think whoever wrote this was simply writing a hoax article using technical buzzwords,
 * when you try and compare events from one frame to another with the limits our frame imposes you find that while event rates in hyperspace yield a superluminal path that path in relation to our frame moves into the future: definitely sounds like someone's idea an "amusing" hoax article.
 * etc.

CH, Wrong. 'Hyperspace' as used by many respectable physicists i.e. Michio Kaku, is a synonym for higher dimensions. - Ben Franklin 71.206.87.9 (talk) 16:26, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Some specific problems
I nominated this for deletion as patent nonsense. Someone asked for some specific problems. Here you are: I think I've said enough. There is not one correct or even sensical sentence in this miserable production. This is without question one of the absolute worst articles I've encounted in WP. ---CH 21:49, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * In physics, hyperspace is a theoretical entity. There is no theoretical concept commonly called hyperspace in physics.  There are similar sounding words like hyperslice, and some physicists have employed this term in popular writings, but not (as far as I can tell) in their scientific work.  The only truly well-known use of this term appears to be in science fiction.
 * The geometry of space-time in special relativity with hyperspace added in SR uses a 'flat' 4-dimensional Minkowski space, usually referred to as space-time. This doesn't even make sense.  The author appears to be confusing spacetime with "hyperspace".  Only the latter is a widely used concept in physics.
 * The differential of distance (ds) in Cartesian 3D space is defined as.. This is one way of writing down the metric tensor of E3, via a line element. But this is only valid in a cartesian chart and it is not the definition of differential from advanced calculus (or calculus on manifolds).
 * In the geometry of special relativity, a fourth dimension, time, is added, with units of c... No, not "units of c". See spacetime and geometrized units.
 * In many situations it may be convenient to treat time as imaginary (e.g. it may simplify equations). No, this is deprecated in all modern textbooks.  See for example Taylor & Wheeler, Spacetime physics.
 * We see that the null geodesics lie along a dual-cone. The usual term is "double-cone", and all this is better treated in light cone and other existing articles.
 * If we extend this to three spatial dimensions, the null geodesics are continuous concentric spheres. No, geodesics are always special curves, never spheres!
 * This null dual-cone represents the "line of sight" of a point in space. No, a null ray represents a line of sight, not the null cone!
 * The biggest difference with adding in extra dimensional hyperspace is that the cone spreads out and shortens in height for the hyperspace frame almost becoming an instanton. This is absolute crap.

Replace with Disambiguation Page
Most of this article seems to be a big cut and past from the Special relativity article. Rather than have two (unmaintainable) copies of the discussion, I feel its best just to link to the relative section. Hence the big snip. SR also provides more background to the mathematics which is necessary for its understanding. I've added a few references to other uses of the term. --Salix alba (talk) 01:12, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

 * I agree that the article is gobbledegook. I'm much less sure that the pain and uncertainty of VFD is a good idea, though. I mean, we haven't even started an edit war over content! Why not either make it a brief article, or perhaps just cut it to a disambig page: hyperspace in SF (perfectly valid); and a link to space-time? William M. Connolley 23:47, 5 February 2006 (UTC).

 * You might be right. That seems to be the way the voting is heading, sigh...  I think there are already existing articles on the science fiction aspects of "hyperspace", etc., but I don't follow SF so I would not be the best choice of editor to make the changes you suggest. ---CH 23:55, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

 * I'm about to go offline for the night; how would it be if you withdrew the VFD and just radically cut it down to just a few lines, removing all the goo and dribble. And I'll check out the SF in the morning :-). Just a personal opinion but... AFD rarely seems to be worth the effort; its always worth trying to simply redirect to the nearest sensible thing, if there are no fanatics about to defned it. What may be quite funny is that most of the gobbledegook maths was actually put there by the very sensible Michael Hardy, though he was just wikifying what was there already... William M. Connolley 00:11, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

 * OK, a concrete proposal: how about /this? William M. Connolley 00:15, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Excellent work. I'd say withdraw the AfD and just edit this in to replace what's there now. ++Lar: t/c 00:39, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

 * You've convinced me. Looks like Pfafrich (Salix alba) already rewrote it as a disambiguation page, but I replaced Pfafrich's version with WMC's version.  Reasons:
 * previous version began In physics, hyperspace is a theoretical entity. The theory consists of the idea that our own universe is connected to other universes through wormholes, and all of the universes are found within "hyperspace". But this is wrong because there is no theory known in physics called hyperspace.
 * previous version continued by mentioning hypercubes and so forth, which are irrelevant except as examples of words beginning with the prefix hyper (I did include them as such in the new version, however).
 * Thanks to all for your help in resolving this! ---CH 04:22, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Now that the page has been remodeled, it should be taken off the vfd list. -- Crevaner 04:56, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Doesn't that violate some WP rule? If not, go ahead.  ---CH 05:03, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * as I understand it, to get an early close everyone now voting delete would need to change their vote, or some sympathetic admin would need to use common sense if it's clear cut... That sort of process abrogation usually raises eyebrows, so I think it best to just point out in a single comment that the article has been changed a LOT and address the specific objections of all the delete commenters. If the closing admin still deletes, bring it up on WP:DRV. I'd support overturn in a minute now, given the way the article is. Note... I would like to see a few more of the references put back in especially to the Cliff Pickover book, but I'm too lazy to actually do the work ... :) ++Lar: t/c 05:15, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Crevaner, I think Lars is right: best to let the process run its course. It seems clear that the result will be keep or no decision.  Hmm... Lars, our library has 12 books by CAP but not this item.  So all you have to do is put in the year and ISBN. ---CH 05:39, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, Lar, sorry but User:Mipadi cannot stomach the book citations (strictly speaking Mipadi is probably right about that), and he's removed them. I modified one of his changes which introduced a new terminological error (this is getting a bit comical). ---CH 06:45, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Remember AfD is a discussion not a vote. My guess is the result will be keep (no consus). Current edits fine by me. --Salix alba (talk) 08:58, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * This article looks EXACTLY like a disambiguation page! Why isn't it one???

All interwiki links except et: and possibly vi: (which I don't understand) are to articles about some specific use of the word (n-dimensional space or hyperspace in science fiction). Andres 06:16, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Re-ordering
I see from the above discussion that the article was much edited before it became a dab page. The resulting page is somewhat confused. For example, it says that "Hyperspace also sounds similar to several terms" including "Hyperspace".

I am re-ordering the entries to follow the historical development of the term, and moving terms other than "Hyperspace" into a "See also" section. This makes it more like a standard dab page; see WP:MOSDAB.

Note that the articles Euclidean space, Non-Euclidean geometry and Minkowski space do not mention the word hyperspace; perhaps they should. Some of the comments on this page (e.g. those about paranormal fantasies and about Minkowski space in science fiction) could do with a cited source. Dab pages do not usually have a "References" section, so I am noting here that my additions are based on the following quotation from 1892 in the Oxford English Dictionary: "W. W. R. BALL Math. Recreations & Problems x. 191 The term hyper-space was used originally of space of more than three dimensions but now it is often employed to denote any non-Euclidean space." JonH (talk) 09:41, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

 * P.S. Instead of Euclidean space, perhaps Fourth dimension or Higher dimension should mention the word hyperspace. JonH (talk) 10:23, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I know its a pointless argument but there are two distinct areas that seem to acquire this term hyperspace. The first is the one I am interested in, namely a simple liner extension of normal 3D space into FTL velocities, also the 'hyperspace' commonly used by science fiction. The second is the use of 'hyperspace' to describe hyperdimensional spaces like Heim theory. Both can apply to Minkowski space-time, yes it is four dimensional but the time axis also allows instantaneous communication and infinite velocity making it a subtype of FTL hyperspace as well. As for definitive reference in this case there isn't one so anything said will end up being speculation and OR. :) Lucien86 (talk) 07:06, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

'Spacetime' is better and more common than 'Space-time'
I replaced the term "space-time" with "spacetime" which is better and more often used by physicists including Einstein. See spacetime - Brad Watson, Miami 72.153.60.84 (talk) 13:13, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

'Hyperspace' is a synonym for 'Higher dimensions'
I tweaked the following... *higher dimensions including Kaluza-Klein's 4-dimensional space and Superstring theory's 9-dimensional space and Supergravity's 10-dimensional space... In physics: * Minkowski space, a concept, often referred to by science fiction writers as hyperspace, that incorrectly refers to the 4-dimensional spacetime of relativity - Ben Franklin 71.206.87.9 (talk) 16:30, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Requested move 5 February 2018

 * 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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: consensus to move the pages, per the discussion below. Dekimasu よ! 21:36, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

– The science fiction usage appears to be the clear primary topic with regards to "Hyperspace". Everything else is either not called that, or a derivative concept from the science fiction usage. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 09:38, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Hyperspace → Hyperspace (disambiguation)
 * Hyperspace (science fiction) → Hyperspace
 * Support, per nom and common name. Randy Kryn (talk) 19:20, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Support, primary topic. — Za  wl  19:23, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Support, clear primary topic of the term. bd2412  T 01:32, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose, it is not true that everything else is a derivative concept from the science fiction usage. See the comment further up this talk page about a quotation from 1892 in the Oxford English Dictionary: "W. W. R. BALL Math. Recreations & Problems x. 191 The term hyper-space was used originally of space of more than three dimensions but now it is often employed to denote any non-Euclidean space." JonH (talk) 08:11, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * That falls under "not called that", because the page is named non-Euclidean geometry. "Hyperspace" is not mentioned in that page, suggesting it's a dated term that is no longer used.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 08:25, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I see what you mean. And you are not proposing to delete the disambiguation page, just choosing a primary topic. JonH (talk) 21:31, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

title: Talk:Hyperspace (disambiguation)