text:
John Avlon

John Phillips Avlon (born January 19, 1973) is an American journalist, political commentator, and Democratic political candidate. He is a senior political analyst and anchor at CNN and was the editor-in-chief and managing director of The Daily Beast from 2013 to 2018.

Avlon was previously a columnist and associate editor for The New York Sun and chief speechwriter for former Mayor of New York City Rudy Giuliani. He is the author of several books, including Independent Nation: How Centrists Can Change American Politics (2004), which critically appraises both traditional American centrism and the more recent radical centrism. He also wrote Wingnuts: How the Lunatic Fringe is Hijacking America (2010). In January 2017, Avlon published Washington's Farewell: The Founding Father's Warning to Future Generations, in which he highlights the history and content of President George Washington's parting treatise to the American people in the context of the contemporary political climate. His most recent book is Lincoln and the Fight for Peace. It is a historical analysis of Lincoln's rebuilding the nation from the Civil War and how those efforts carried on past his assassination.

Avlon is the Democratic nominee in New York's 1st congressional district election in 2024, facing Republican incumbent Nick LaLota in the general election. Avlon's campaign was endorsed by Reps. Tom Suozzi, Gregory Meeks and Dan Goldman along with Democratic Majority for Israel’s political arm, DMFI PAC.

Early life and education
Avlon was born in 1973 in New York City to Dianne Alexander (née Phillips) and John Jeffrey Avlon, a lawyer and real estate executive with companies in Charleston, South Carolina, and New York City. He is of Greek descent, and his grandparents were immigrants. He was educated at Milton Academy, an independent preparatory school in Milton, Massachusetts. He is a childhood friend and schoolmate of Matthew Pottinger. He earned his BA from Yale University and an MBA from Columbia University.

Career
Avlon started his career as the youngest speechwriter for Mayor Rudy Giuliani. He was promoted to chief speechwriter and the deputy director of policy. He prepared the mayor's addresses for the State of the City (1999 through 2001), testimony to Congress on homeland security, and address to the United Nations General Assembly on counterterrorism. He was also a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute. He is an advisory board member of the Citizens Union of New York, Bronx Academy of Letters, and the Theodore Roosevelt Association.

Avlon joined The Daily Beast in 2008 one month after its launch. He worked his way up through the organization starting as a columnist and moving on to political editor, executive editor and then managing editor. In 2013, Avlon became editor-in-chief of The Daily Beast. By September 2014, the website reached a new record of 21 million unique visitors; it was a 60% year-over-year increase in readers, accompanied by a 300% increase in the overall size of its social media community. During Avlon's leadership The Daily Beast doubled its traffic to 1.1 million readers a day and won over 17 awards for journalistic excellence.

In May 2018, Avlon announced his departure from The Daily Beast. He joined CNN as a senior political analyst and anchor. Barry Diller, chairman and senior executive of IAC, issued a statement shortly after Avlon announced his departure, "John Avlon has been a superb editorial leader of the Daily Beast. He's built a formidable newsroom, and a culture of excellence and decency. I only wish him the best for the future, and greatly am appreciative of his bringing Noah Shachtman onboard as his deputy so that we're in the position to continue the fine work of the Daily Beast."

Television
Avlon has made appearances on a variety of television shows such as The Late Show with Stephen Colbert, The Daily Show, and Real Time with Bill Maher, as well as on news programs on MSNBC, PBS, CNN, and C-SPAN.

Avlon created and hosted the "Wingnut of the Week" segment on CNN. Syndicated columnist Kathleen Parker wrote that "Americans who are fed up with the Ann Coulter/Michael Moore school of debate, and are looking for someone to articulate a common sense middle path, may have found their voice in John Avlon." Avlon first appeared on television in 2005 on the Daily Show with Jon Stewart to discuss his book Independent Nation. He credits this debut with the launch of his TV career.

In June 2018, Avlon moved to CNN full time as senior political analyst making daily appearances on New Day, as well as guest anchoring for programs including State of America and Reliable Sources. His segment "Reality Check" on New Day was referred to as "a standout, and a welcome feature on television in a current era lacking in reality-based news coverage." Digital news outlet Mediaite, in referring to Avlon's New Day segment said, "Need a fascinating but unexpected perspective on the news of the day? John Avlon’s recurring segment "Reality Check" is a hit."

Avlon has been interviewed in several documentaries including HBO's Breslin and Hamill: Deadline Artists, 2010's Gerrymandering, History Channel's miniseries Washington and CNN's Lincoln: Divided We Stand.

In September 2021, CNN announced the debut of the digital series Reality Check with John Avlon: Extremist Beat, which will track the rise of extremist groups in America. Avlon hopes the series can contextualize the history and development of these types of movements within American history saying, "At the end of the day, a lot of these things riff off older conspiracies. And I think by pulling out and drawing those connections, people can all of a sudden have perspective on what they may have been sucked into," explaining "we add that additional layer that I think is a lot more than what you get just by the daily thrust and parry of the news and chronicling the crazy." In 2023, Reality Check won the New York Press Club award for best TV commentary.

Writing
Avlon has written numerous articles and essays. He wrote the Newsweek cover-story: "A 21st Century Statesman," (February 28, 2011), about actor, director and activist George Clooney. It was based in part on Avlon's trip accompanying Clooney to South Sudan to witness the referendum for independence from the North after two decades of civil war.

His essay on New York, "The Resilient City", written after the 9/11 attacks, was selected to conclude the anthology Empire City: New York Through the Centuries (2002). Fred Siegel, the author of The Future Once Happened Here, praised it as "the single best essay written in the wake of 9/11."

In 2010, Avlon published Wingnuts: How the Lunatic Fringe is Hijacking America about the evolution of fringe political movements and their inroads into mainstream American politics. Bill Clinton commented:

"Wingnuts offers a clear and comprehensive review of the forces on the outer edges of the political spectrum that shape and distort our political debate. Shedding more heat than light they drive frustrated alienated citizens away from the reasoned discourse that can produce real solutions to our problems."

In 2011, Avlon co-edited the anthology Deadline Artists: America's Greatest Newspaper Columns with Jesse Angelo and Errol Louis. The book earned a starred review from Publishers Weekly prior to publication. The trio edited and published a sequel in 2012, Deadline Artists 2: Scandals, Tragedies and Triumphs. An opinion piece in The Washington Post described Deadline Artists as "one of the greatest collections of newspaper articles ever compiled" and saluted 'DA2' as "an equally superb sequel...may more siblings follow."

During the 2012 presidential campaign, Avlon was among the first reporters to suggest that Rick Santorum, rather than Mitt Romney, had won the narrow Iowa caucuses (Santorum was declared the victor weeks after the election night tally favored Romney). In 2013, Avlon broke the news that Republican Congresswoman Michele Bachmann was under investigation by the Office of Congressional Ethics. The ethics investigation is thought to have contributed to her decision not to run for re-election.

In 2017, Avlon published Washington's Farewell: The Founding Father's Warning to Future Generations. His publisher released the book the day that President Barack Obama gave his farewell speech. American historian Richard Norton Smith said: "It's hard to tell which is more nearly perfect—John Avlon's argument or his timing. In the wake of a dispiriting campaign, Avlon finds in Washington's Farewell Address a stunningly topical antidote to excessive partisanship and greedy self interest. His book is a stake through the heart of political extremism."

In April 2018, it was announced that Avlon was working on a book on Lincoln planned for release in 2020, focusing on the final five weeks of Lincoln's life and "his determination to reunite the nation through a radical new vision of winning the war by also winning the peace."

Avlon's book titled Lincoln and the Fight for Peace was released in February 2021. Filmmaker Ken Burns called the book a "A stunning accomplishment, and an essential reminder that the Civil War – the most important event in our country's history – is very much part of who we are as a people and a nation today." Author and presidential historian Douglas Brinkley says the book, "Brilliantly illuminates the enduring legacy of America's greatest president. With erudition and elegance, Avlon documents how Lincoln's sage political wisdom has helped democracy flourish." The New York Times said, "These are not unfamiliar tales to students of Lincoln, but Avlon makes the retelling affecting and powerful. At the same time, Avlon plays down the highly ideological Lincoln."

In July 2018, Kirkus Reviews called Avlon's contribution to the anthology Fight for Liberty: Defending Democracy in the Age of Trump, "Perhaps the best piece in the collection, who observes with considerable understatement that 'America is living through a stark departure from its best political traditions.'"

Editorial approach
As editor-in-chief of The Daily Beast, Avlon has been cited for supporting original and breaking content for the platform. "There's an explicit mandate," said Pulitzer Prize winning Daily Beast national security reporter Spencer Ackerman "from John Avlon that we are not in commodity news business. We have to break news. I am not in a position where, like at a lot of other places, I have to rewrite other peoples' stories. It's a seemingly trivial observation but has tremendous amount of impact."

Political activism
In 2010, Avlon was a founding leader of No Labels, a 501(c)(4) citizens movement of Republicans, Democrats, and Independents whose mission is to address the politics of problem solving. However, since 2013, Avlon hasn't been involved in No Labels, when he became editor-in-chief of The Daily Beast. In 2023, he published a column on CNN critical of the group's potential third party presidential effort, calling it "an extraordinarily reckless risk at this particular time in our history."

Avlon also belongs to Reshape New York, a group that supports redistricting reform to end partisan gerrymandering by "proposing an independent, impartial and politically balanced citizens redistricting commission to draw fair district boundaries through a process that allows for ample public input."

In 2011, Mayor Michael Bloomberg appointed Avlon to the New York City Voter Assistance Advisory Committee. The VAAC advises the New York City Campaign Finance Board on its voter engagement mandates, including voter registration and participation outreach activities.

On February 21, 2024, he announced that he would challenge incumbent Republican U.S. House representative Nick LaLota in New York's 1st congressional district. He won his primary on June 25, defeating opponent Nancy Goroff.

Associations
Avlon is on the board of governors for the Overseas Press Club and the board of directors for the House of Speakeasy. He also served as co-chair for the successful effort to preserve John Steinbeck's home in Sag Harbor and turn it into a writer's retreat.

Personal life
Avlon is married to PBS Firing Line host and political commentator Margaret Hoover. She is a great-granddaughter of President Herbert Hoover. They have a son, born in 2013, and a daughter, born in 2015.

Honors
The National Society of Newspaper Columnists honored Avlon in 2011 for his online column in The Daily Beast; their citation read: "While [Avlon] brings a reporter's sensibility to his interviews and research, he infuses his accounts with witty judgments that contribute a strong, unapologetic perspective." In 2012, he won the NSNC award for the best online column. In 2017, Avlon was named "One of the Most Influential in News Media" by Mediaite, stating:

"Besides steering one of the more influential online media outlets in the country, John Avlon is also a trusted, grounded and welcome voice on CNN (and Bill Maher) panels. While eschewing hard partisan tribalism for a more centrist approach, Avlon has still been one of the most vociferous Trump critics in this new world. The Daily Beast continues to thrive with Avlon at the helm."

title: John Avlon


text:
Talk:Effective microorganism

Relevence questioned
EM - or other synonyms are irrelevant. Microbes started life on this planet and continues to provide the glue which enables our natural systems to function. Not to beat a dead horse please visit this attached site and lets go from here. With all due respect. Gerald

http://soils.usda.gov/sqi/concepts/soil_biology/biology.html

 * This comment appears to miss the point. EM uses specific combinations of bacteria and yeast that have several desirable properties.  EM formulations are both long lasting and dramatic in effect.  The existing technology that they most closely resemble is compost tea.  This is interesting because compost tea has been used for a very long time both in biodynamic agriculture and in traditional Chinese agriculture, yet scientific understanding, proof of effectiveness, and metrics do not exist.  Why should a new variant of something that has never been fully explained await a full explanation before its formulation and use are documented? -- M0llusk (talk) 00:17, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

 * I agree. EM's aren't a drop-in product for septic tanks.  Get off it.  It's an agricultural product that may have some application in processing raw sewage.  I agree that the company makes some crazy claims, but the fact remains that it is an effective product for many different applications and there may be some industrial applications in processing sewage.  Just because some South African people couldn't figure out how to use the product doesn't discount it's effectiveness.  The biological processes involved are well-known.  Take a bucket of poop and spray a strong cultivation of this product.  You will see an immediate decrease in offensive odors.  Close it up and let it ferment for two weeks and you will have an excellent fertilizer.  Probably one of the best fertilizers in existence.  This article needs to be about the many proven uses for this bacteria culture, not about one person's frustration about not being able to figure out how to use the product properly. -- n00q (talk) 11:17, 26 Oct 2015 (UTC)

EM is a trade´s name, a product-name, near the shortened long name. My understanding - from long years work with to understand EM, with ´little´ but long home-works with it - is: the main effect is against mold, in earth (as improvement, betterment the soil) and in buildings. It kills mold-bacterias within less than 24 hours. (Exact scientifically I can not do research.) The same in earth (soil), where the only (strong) ´good´ bacterias, good for the soil, food for the plants, over-live. This EMs - the company, which claims the mark EM as saved, I wrote here (in the article) some years ago, only ´EM EFFECTIVE MICROORGANISMS´ as brand-name is saved. I mentioned a link to THE data-base for (international) brand-names. (Everything, this short notes, was deleted. Perhaps the link still exists, if somehow documented this) - can be easy home-made, just with a mix of much less than the about 80 lactic acid bacterias (from different milk-products), and works. (To apart home-made (from the professional EM) it might not be named as EM, but EM is it, where it is about, and may AS WORD - from brand-owning - not be excluded of from the public. Despite this I would prefere to find an other fitting word, to apart (the home-made) from this.) (This (home-made) the EM-Companys will not like and wikipedia has to decide, whether to publish this my text at all, because they like to go to court, only for the claim of the name EM, even without outlook to win this. So decide well. But perhaps this (to court) did change in the meanwhile.) (Note: at https://www.wipo.int/branddb/en/ at text put in ´em effektive microorganisms´ and there is something to learn about brands with. Despite leaving to me something un-clear: ´international´ !) A special meaning do have microorganisms in Terra Preta. (In producing Terra Preta can be used EM as support therefor.) Thanks the interesst. --Visionhelp (talk) 07:51, 8 August 2019 (UTC) Sorry this unexact "EM is a trade´s name, a product-name, near the shortened long name.": EM is not a brand-name for ´Effective Microorganisms´. Visionhelp (talk) 12:46, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Comments of original author
My first article from scratch, and had two automatic interwiki links that I didn't have to bring up myself! Darned computer logged me off when I saved so I couldn't see my name in the history log. Oh well, always next time...Now for fine-tuning. Schlüggell | Talk 23:22, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Discussions on this article possibly being advertising
If the neutrality is disputed give me some ideas of how this is not a nutral article. All I've done is relate the info of proprietary products from sources of various languages.

This sounds more like an advertisement than a neutral data-driven article. Too bad. If I had been able to access a diversity of information on EM I might have actually bought some.

Oh well.

1>Many companies use this term, it is not even necessarily meant to be trademarked as it is worded in the article. Until recently many companies weren't offering the number of products. And some of the other companies products are inferior at any rate.

2>Other companies that sell these types of products are even more proprietary, EMRO discloses how the product is made AND from what sources - and underwrites many volunteer efforts. And none of it is patented from a test tube culture {like some companies}.

We have been manufacturing and propagating EM in India for the last 5 years and thought we should try and give our inputs in order to get some clarity on the subject.

The facts according to us are as follows. Rest of the issues in terms of citations to prove authenticity and neutrality as an article could be built around it.

1. The word EM is not a generic term, but a brand created by Dr. Higa to give recognition to his original invention. This is clearly stated in his letter to us as well. 2. One could think of this as an advertisement, but the facts are for everyone to see. The technology has been bringing huge benefits to millions of people all over the globe. 3. I guess one has to take a stand to promote a technology at the cost of giving it an ad label, if it can bring so many benefits to the society at large. 4. All except EMRO do not have what we all know as EM. They only possess a close acronym, which has been cleverly made to leverage the popularity of the original EM. 5. Others do not have the blessings of Dr. Higa or EMRO. However, in all their publications and websites etc, they have again used the connection with EMRO and Dr. Higa to give their product line recognition and respect. True that Mr. Mathew Wood (SCD) did his studies under Dr. Higa and was helped a lot by his benevolence. There was no other connection to him or EMRO thereafter. 6. All this does not mean that their products are inferior in comparison to the original EM. 7. My issues are that why mislead the public by drawing connections when none exist and using the brand in an attempt to get market share? 8. If others are so confident about their quality, performance and delivery systems, then why not call their products something different than EM and follow it up with aggressive marketing. 9. Let the better product prove itself on its own merit.

In conclusion, let us focus on the original EM and present it in its original form and not confuse with similarly sounding words!!

Regards, Sanjay

Biosa is derived from Dr. Higa's work too. Why delete links?
It is all good that the world knows and uses this product.

Let people decide which company to purchase from.

Cheers,

UW

neutrality/advertising
I notice a link to "700" research papers was added. I may be missing something - but these papers dont appear to be in international peer-reviewed journals. I this article appears to be advertising or at the very least is very non NPOV. MidgleyDJ 02:18, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

*On nuetrality:

To an extent I agree.

This article is describing a "product" of naturally occuring microorganisms that have been formulated to work in conjunction with each and provide a benefit to the earth and the people who live on it. While that sounds a bit pie-in-the-sky, there is no doubt to the many who have used it that it works as described.

The "product" is made, marketed and sold by various companies around the world. So is Honey when it is made in a controlled environment: Beekeeping. Any person who believes in the value of EM technology wants it to be as popular and widespread as honey. I do.

On advertising:

There are other companies that make this product and they are missing from this article. In fact they were removed a few days ago by a Wiki user named EMeric.

Now, I could be all wrong about this, but it makes sense that EMeric is probably this person(Google Search)

So is the article advertising? When all sources of information other than EMAmerica and SCD are removed: Yes.

I use Biosa and market it too.

BTW here's a reference to the Tsumani Relief efforts in Thailand using EM. Does the fact that it comes from an EM producing company negate it's truthfulness?? Urbanwild 03:39, 16 September 2006 (UTC) -30-

Some ideas on how the article is non-neutral advertising
This kind of thing in the intro (which I have now edited out) is what people mean when they say it is advertising:

 * Only AUTHENTIC EM has the EM logo. EM and "Effective Microorganisms" are trademarked in the United States. Beware of other products claiming to be EM. If the bottle you buy does not say "Effective Microorganisms", such as "Efficient Microbes", then it is NOT authentic EM.

I agree with all the reasons people are nominating the article for deletion, but I like a challenge so I'd like to see if it this shameless piece of spam can be re-written as an encylopedia article, complete with thorough and appropriate references, before it goes on the slush pile. To that end, I've replaced words like pioneered, realized and discovered with claimed. In the absence of research published in a reputuable scientific journal it will be much easier to provide sources to confirm that the alleged innovator of this process claims these things are true than it would be to demonstrate that they actually are. The latter, as several people have pointed out, is beyond the scope of Wikipedia anyway.

I know nothing about the subject but I'm prepared to learn about it and work with those who do in an effort to save it. In the meantime, it urgently needs references and plenty of information about EM's competitors. If the original poster wrote the article in good faith, as he claims, I am sure he will be happy to start work on this immediately. Gruffle Gaw 11:33, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

 * Comment Although I am not the original author of this article, I am biased by my interest and involvement with EM aka Friendly Microbes [FM], so I am happy to leave the re-write into neutral language to you. I will post material/links in the Reference section for your consideration. Urbanwild 15:57, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

 * Urbanwild: The references you added are by "organisations promoting EM technology". If the article is too be saved from deletion it needs independant verification of the claims made. At present it's a list of mainly unsubstantiated claims. Articles in peer-reviewed, mainstream science journals would be a useful place to start. MidgleyDJ 22:21, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Restructuring
I have made some alterations to this article to help it from looking like such a marketing piece. I suggest it needs a lot more focus on the technology and how it works as opposed to the companies behind the creation of products. The article adds to wikipedia through the science and technology, a lot less so through the disambiguation of trademark issues.--Alex 14:13, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

 * I agree with that, though the disambiguation info had to be added to stop the article from being deleted cause other users were thinking the article was a "product placement". 15:15, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

 * I think there is enough background information for this article not to be deleted. Expansion of the science by experts in this will be interesting.--Alex 15:26, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

600 published articles?
It would be worth posting some to verify the material in this article. MidgleyDJ 01:55, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

The database has since been moved to http://www.emrojapan.com. The articles are a mixture of presentations, case studies, peer reviewed documents, and research papers from researchers around the world. The majority of them are from the Kyusei Nature Farm Conferences 1-8. There are peer-reviewed articles that can be found on the net. PubMed has a few on EM-X®. I plan to keep digging around to cite them.--EricL TeraGanix (talk) 06:40, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Link to EM Technology database: over 700 papers published
there you go...Urbanwild 02:15, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

 * I've looked at a few of the articles in the database you provided. They (all as far as I can tell) arent in scientific peer-reviewed journals. Can you point me to properly scientific articles testing the effectiveness of these "effective microbes"? MidgleyDJ 02:28, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

 * I Added --SailorOnHorseback (talk) 20:27, 23 January 2009 (UTC) (forgot to log-in so its listed as anonymous) an article written by Higa and a USDA Micro-biologist Dr. James Parr about their own inability to validate results and a reference to the Dominance principle as their philosophical approach.

I would love to see dis-ambiguations to this page from Beneficial Microorganisms, Beneficial Micro-Organisms, Effective Microorganisms, and Effective Micro-organisms, and Effective Microbes, as the differences in hyphenation and names occur throughout different research. That's beyond my wikipedia skills. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SailorOnHorseback (talk • contribs) 20:17, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

In 2009 the list of papers on EMRO's website was cleaned up dramatically, removing many of the lower-quality white papers and articles. For this section, I added in several peer reviewed references. I hope this helps a bit in this area.--EricL TeraGanix (talk) 00:32, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Capitalisation of term
If, as the anonymous user above suggests, effective microorganisms is a generic term rather than (or as well as) a trademark, it should not be capitalised in this article. I have Googled the term and found this seems to be the case, so I am changing this in the article. Gruffle Gaw 14:27, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

"EM", "EM-X", and "EM Technology" are all registered trademarks in the USA and at least an additional 12 other countries. If that helps. I advise checking with the USTPO and other trademarking agencies.--EricL TeraGanix (talk) 06:41, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

--Visionhelp (talk) 09:58, 20 November 2016 (UTC) Sorry, but it is N O T  un-important: EM as trademark finding here tmsearch.uspto.gov has nothing to do with EM from Prof. Higa. The only one I found some weeks ago, I can not search now again myself, was: "EFFECTIVE MICROORGANISMS". So, from this, to propagate "EM" as trademark is not reputable (for wikipedia), additionly without the source(s) of the registration(s). WIKIPEDIA wants sources for everything, but not for something important like trademarks. . . [And, PLEASE: the name is not Visionhelp, it is visionhelp or VisionHelp.]

Pointing, please: As "generic term" it did not exist before the first appearance of this product name. To use it ´generic´ or for similar self-made product, as for example IMOs (Indigenous Mikroorganisms); written in TITLES usual written in capital letters), the clear exact defined brand-name(s) "EM Effective Microorganisms" or "Effective Microorganisms EM" this in this exact order and appearance, as "EFFECTIVE MICROORGANISMS" (I think currently the 2nd one), may not be used for generic, and commercial, use; I just am able to word it this way. If making EMs in Do-It-Yourself (DIY), with (even much) less than 80 kinds of organisms (lactic acid bacterias), then it IS to call EMs (generic). Or if making, extracting, EMs oneself from IMOs (Indigenous Microorganisms), then it is to call also EMs. I assume (once), this as reason for allowing by law the brand names as they are allowed now only this way. Visionhelp (talk) 13:10, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Neutrality disputed
EM technology is a pseudoscience. Web sites promoting EM are either from companies selling EM products, or from the new age community. A particularly blatant example is a "scientific" report from a pakistani research team posted on the emamerica website, claiming to have achieved miraculous improvements in the immune status of breast cancer patients with an EM rice beverage. Another sure sign for quack science are the "EM ceramics", a ceramic material that has imprinted the "resonance" or "energies" of the microorganisms.

Reply: what is real quack is people writing about products, in this case, ceramics, which they have never touched, seen, or used. The bacteria simply survive the process because they can stand heat up to 600 degrees Celsius. I've been using the ceramics for years and they really help keeping water fresh. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ichnaton (talk • contribs) 17:10, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

 * This criticism is irrelevant nonsense. First of all, the .info sites that explain EM have no commercial connections.  Additionally on this first point it is worth mentioning that all manner of products have bad actors at the commercial level, but that is on no particular relevance.  Should Viagra go undocumented because it is a great source of spam?  Secondly, Wikipedia is to document practices and beliefs.  We do not wait for proof of the existence of God before allowing Christianity to be documented.  EM is an extension of compost tea use practices from Chinese farming and Biodynamic agriculture.  Proof has always been wanting with these practices, yet their use has continued for many generations.  Skipping documentation because of open questions makes no sense, it only relates to the kind of wording, disclaimers, criticism sections, and citations such articles should have. -- M0llusk (talk) 19:37, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Proposal for a neutral article
The german article "Effektive Mikroorganismen" in its current form provides a neutral description of the topic. It would be worth deleting the english article and replacing it by a translation of the german one.

 * If you feel like you can do the translation I am sure it would be most welcome.--Alex 08:49, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

 * Ok, I will try when I find the time, but my wikipedia editing skills are zero. Actually this EM quackery is the reason that I started actively participating in wikipedia.

So I have translated the core of the german article:

The use of "effective microorganisms" is also called "EM technology" by the proponents of this concept. "EM technology" is a scientifically not approved agronomic method to improve soil quality and plant growth using a mixture of microorganisms consisting mainly of lactic acid bacteria, yeasts and purple bacteria. According to, the mixture consists of the following organisms:

 * Lactobacillus plantarum, Lactobacillus casei, Streptococcus lactis
 * Rhodopseudomonas palustrus, Rhodobacter spaeroides
 * Saccharomyces cerevisiae, candida utilis
 * Aspergillus oryzae, Mucor hienalis

The concept of "effective microorganisms" was developed by the japanese agronomist Teruo Higa (Ryuku university, Okinawa) in the 1970s. Higa claims that a specific combination of microorganisms is capable to positively influence decomposing organic matter and to revert a process of decomposition into a "life promoting" process.

Higa invokes a "dominance principle" to explain the effects of his "effective microorganisms". He claims that there exist three groups of microorganisms: "positive microorganims" (regeneration), "negative microorganisms" (decomposition, degeneration), "opportunist microorganisms". In every medium (soil, water, air, the human intestine), the ratio of "positive" and "negative" microorganisms is critical, since the "opportunist microorganisms" follow the trend to regeneration or degeneration. Therefore, Higa believes that it is possible to positively influence the given media by supplementing "positive microorganisms".

This text could replace the technology chapter. The applications chapter could stay, but the starting sentence ("useful applications") has to be replaced. Having translated, I am now not sure anymore if this is not much too neutral. Perhaps it would be wiser to flag the whole article for deletion? EM Technology is such a ridiculous fringe concept that one does not even find contra arguments in the literature. It perhaps shouldn't appear in a serious encyclopedia.

 * I'm willing to put some edit time in, just to see what this looks like with the German information. -- Paleorthid 06:17, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

 * Thank you for the editing. I think the article looks better now. I've reverted the "PNSB (photosynthetic) bacteria" back to "purple bacteria", since Purple Non-Sulfur Bacteria are only a subgroup of purple bacteria. And "yeast" back to "yeasts", since there are different quite unrelated yeast strains.

I'm rather disappointed at the extremely skeptical tone of this article. Here in Christchurch, New Zealand, the local City Council has been running an EM Bokashi system for home kitchen waste pre-compost processing, selling the bins and the EM-impregnated bran/sawdust mix from Bokashi NZ.

I have one of these in my kitchen right now and I can tell you, whatever is in the little critters, it really works and is not snake oil - at least for the application of dealing with kitchen waste. It sort of pickles the stuff, stops it from going off and makes composting a lot nicer. Our local community garden's composting scheme also swears by it.

What I do know however is that it is difficult to get a straight answer from people as to what exactly the recipe is for the bacteria/fungus mix, as it seems to be semi-proprietary (and presumably this is licenced from the original EMRO organisation or such. Possibly this is what is confusing people here and making them think that this page is an advertisement. But whether or not you think the 'recipe' for EM should be open-source or proprietary, and whether you think it is a 'technology' or merely a useful process, it is most certainly a real thing and it exists, and in my opinion has huge potential and should be explored further.

I'll add a link to Bokashi NZ as they are the source for the EM material I use and I can vouch that they are a real organisation. --Natecull (talk) 07:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I should add that I strongly dispute the 'pseudoscience' category tag attached to this article, therefore I am removing it and adding 'organic farming', which is not disputable as regardless of merits, the process is in active use in the organic community in New Zealand. --Natecull (talk) 08:09, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

 * I think the problem with the article is that it deals entirely with an untested commercial product - as reported by the inventor himself: " ... the main limitation...is the problem of reproducibility and lack of consistent results" and is just not presented to the standards of an encyclopedia - Wikipedia doesn't support "spreading the word" .... it's "snake oil" to anyone who has some understanding of composting and soil science, and considering there's been no change to date since the original posting, it should be cut down to a simple factual statement of what EM is, a proprietary blend of indeterminate microbes, grown on various substrates anaerobicly, with unknown benefits or usefullness

Red58bill (talk) 06:43, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

 * Nate it's not that the product is "snake oil" in the typical sense, the product probably helps composting, the question is whether it really works any better than the organisms you're already likely to find in your own compost. It's more akin to selling something already readily and freely available from anyone's yard. Like bottling air, and then calling it 'specially formulated oxygen regenerating breathing formula' and slapping a price tag on it. The organisms in any old compost pile are probably just as good, and that's probably all most these products are. I don't think this deserves its own Wikipedia page, as it seems to be just a product range push, with no science to back it up. 196.210.255.208 (talk) 10:42, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I just joined Wikipedia so I could join this discussion. A long time lurker, I have never contributed; thank you for your patience.

The discussion seems trapped; managing to be both too broad and too vague at the same time. I feel the article needs to be re-imagined, if you will. There is no arguing that microorganisms can be cultured, and that specific microorganisms are desirable because they are effective at doing some thing or an other. So effective microorganisms can be cultivated, for personal or commercial use. If this is not an advertisement for EM, then we should be able to rename the article to make clear this salient point: we are talking about non-microscopic cultivation of microorganisms that are effective. Like, sourdough starter, bokashi starter, yogurt and cheese bacteria, mushroom propagation, and more. !You don't need a microscope to make sourdough, and bread starters are a poor example of a microbiological culture! Defining the process that EM falls within will hopefully help clear things up. If there is a word for this concept (or better, a Wiki entry) please let me know know and provide a link. Here is my best shot at this:

--- Non-microscopic cultivation of microorganisms

Microorganisms include bacteria, fungi, archaea, and protists; microscopic plants (called green algae); and animals such as plankton, the planarian and the amoeba. These organisms can be cultivated, using any one of several methods, for many purposes.

Outside of laboratories, examples of microbiological cultivation include fermentation starters like Sourdough starter, some mushroom cultivation methods, yogurt rennet, cheese, and a certain agronomic applications.

Agronomy There are several commercially available cultivated microorganisms,such as those used in some commercial bokashi composting systems (unavoidable mostly-neutral advertising here).

Process of Cultivation (need examples like rice cakes and mold, Petri dishes, steamed or boiled grains, paper or cardboard, rice water, wild yeast, etc ) also some references and such ---

I am too green to make any sort of change like this, but does anyone think something like this could be better? Then the EM page could be a description of their specific cultivated microorganism(s), and everything's relevance can be reevaluated independent of one another.

Emrys81 (talk) 10:40, 29 March 2009 (UTC) -

most of this criticism is not directly relevant
Because this article addresses existing methods that have limited, but global adoption the content including citations and criticism should be about what people are doing, what words they are using, and what results they claim. Whether or not there is valid scientific support is another question entirely. There are many other subjects like this. For example, Witchcraft, Falun Gong, Prayer, and Ghost all have articles on Wikipedia, yet there is only a moderated amount of discussion in these articles and their talk pages about proof or related science. It doesn't make sense for this article to have big warnings at the top and long arguments on the talk page after this many years. -- M0llusk (talk) 03:15, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

 * Witchcraft and Prayer aren't commercial products. That makes this one an advert, and companies don't automatically get to write articles for their products on Wikipedia, regardless of what a few people say or do. It would thus help in this case to have proof that the products actually work. This one is much more akin to, say, homeopathy than to those examples you mention. 196.210.255.208 (talk) 10:50, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

 * It is entirely appropriate for theories, products, processes, etc. which purport to have a scientific basis to be challenged on that basis. The examples you give do not claim to be based on science and in fact claim to be supernatural so a scientific analysis is inappropriate. Joja  lozzo  16:38, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

New content on application of EM in sanitation
To the people watching this page: Myself and a few others are planning, over the course of the coming days/weeks, to add more content of how EM has been applied in sanitation, what the science is and whether there is any real benefit to using in EM for pit latrines, septic tanks, wastewater treatment plants etc. (so far, the scientific evidence is not there that it would be of benefit, but nevertheless it is quite widely used). If that section gets quite extensive we might later split it off into a separate article.EvM-Susana (talk) 08:35, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * This planned additional content has now been added. EvM-Susana (talk) 07:56, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Section on "Validation attempts" needs more work
The section on "Validation attempts" needs more work, perhaps a different title would actually be more fitting, or a sub-structure is needed. I don't find this section clear. If I am not mistaken, then the sources cited are only primary sources but not review articles, so they need to be treated with care (when it comes to medical content at least). EvM-Susana (talk) 07:56, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I generally agree that these sources are fairly weak and can imagine that our medical colleagues will be here shortly to complain about the primary sources. The problem is that there are no good secondary sources to use on this - maybe we should take the medical claims out altogether?JMWt (talk) 11:48, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I was thinking along the same lines. Let's see if anyone else reacts during the next week or so and if not, then I would say we should delete it. Unless EM is somehow a "hot topic" in medicine right now that we are not aware of, but I doubt it. EvM-Susana (talk) 12:38, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

I disagree on recent edits by n00q (Oct. 2015)
Hi User:n00q: I disagree with your recent edits to the article. And by the way please put new comments always at the end of the talk page, not somewhere in the middle. EM are used in septic tanks and wastewater treatment (with dubious results), so no need to delete those statements about septic tanks. You are making all sorts of changes to the article without providing one single reputable reference for your statements. The research that is quoted from South Africa and Netherlands is sound research. Provide some sound, reliable sources for your statements (not primary research, not adversiting websites of manufacturers), then we can discuss further. As long as you don't supply reliable sources, your statements need to be deleted, I think. If you want to structure the article differently, please propose something. EM is used in sanitation systems, that's why the sections about sanitation are written the way they are and I would say they are well referenced. If you want to add sections on other applications (with good, reliable sources), go ahead. Wikipedia is all about WP:VERIFY. EvMsmile (talk) 00:43, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

EM is an agricultural and health product not a septic drop-in treatment (Oct. 2015)
Hi User:EvMsmile: I'm new here, so I apologize if I didn't utilize the system (ie. the talk page) appropriately, and I apologize for not understanding the process here. This product is extremely effective for some purposes. I do not have any economic interest in this product, and therefore I believe I have no conflict of interest as related to this information source.

It is true that some people and organizations have a fanatical attitude towards this product and that they occasionally make claims that are not provable, esp. when related to the possible health benefits of a beneficial yeasts and bacteria. I support the efforts of Wikipedia to have sound, fact-based information in these articles, etc.

I do not find any articles by the producers of this bacterial culture saying that this product is intended to be a drop-in treatment for septic systems. Therefore, most of this article should be scrapped. WP:VERIFY

Em's are an agricultural product with many uses. The main use of the product is for accelerated, anaerobic composting, for which it is proven effective. The article should reflect that. N00q (talk) 17:55, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

 * Hi, it seems to me that you have two different issues here. First you are challenging the idea that the pit additives discussed on the page are actually "official" Effective microorganisms. Second you are saying that the page should not be discussing the use of EM in sanitation as it is an agricultural amendment.

 * On the first point, you might be aware that along with me and other editors work on WP:SANI, which is an effort to improve sanitation pages on wikipedia - so most of our efforts are in the sanitation field.  And I can assure you that there certainly are some who say that EM should be used as a "drop-in" treatment, and we have some references which specifically mention it - such as the Orangi Pilot Project section. So I don't think it matters here whether the quote unquote "official" producers of the EM product are or are not saying it is to be used in sanitation, as we have sources who say that it is.

 * Where I think there is a bit of confusion is that we have added other sources to this page which discuss "latrine additives" which are not specifically mentioned as being EM. So I think perhaps we need to think (and discuss here) what we actually mean by Effective Microorganisms - is it a "brand", or a concept (like "Organic farming") which is more than just the original developers of the idea? Can it stretch as far as describing the more general (perhaps) issue of latrine additives - which are said to be forms of beneficial microbes which encourage rapid breakdown of faeces? As we were writing the page before, I was thinking these were interchangeable terms, but I am open to thinking some more about that.

 * But either way, there are references to sanitation systems which specifically refer to EM, so I don't support your assertion that "most of the article should be scrapped". As per WP:VERIFY, if the sources are reliable and mention the use of EM in sanitation, we can include them.

 * On your second point, I agree that the aspects of agricultural amendment could be increased and improved - I'd just point out again that this was not our focus as part of WP:SANI. That said, any further statements about the positive impacts of EM as an agricultural product need to include reliable sources, not just an opinion - which ideally means peer reviewed journals. I'd encourage you to add what you know, with good references, to support your claims that EM is a valuable idea in agriculture.

 * In conclusion, we have worked on the sanitation aspects of EM because we believe it is possible that readers might hear of the "Effective microorganism" concept with relation to latrine additives. I hope that explains why the page looks like it does.  I'm very open to seeing the agricultural use explored some more, providing there are good references to any claims or assertions made about it. JMWt (talk) 14:21, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the discussion. It is important that this article clearly reflect the work of Dr. Higa and that it accurately present information regarding Effective Organisms for readers.

 * No citations provided for stated claims I see no citation in the article stating specifically that Effective Microorganisms or any of the related types of products are specifically designed, recommended or marketed as a drop-in treatment for traditional sewage systems by Dr. Higa or any of the related organizations that produce and/or promote their products.  The 'claims' that are actually made by Dr. Higa et. al. are generally related to a kind of environmental philosophy about the soil and the atmosphere, and although at times they may seem slightly esoteric and unprovable, they should be represented accurately and with specific references.

 * It is a bacterial culture EM is a bacterial culture and it works very well for sustainable agricultural uses, including converting human waste into compost, when used properly.  Use of Lactic Acid Bacteria (LAB) to convert bio-waste into compost is well-known and well-documented in many articles on PubMed etc.  In the sanitation group, your interest seems to be related to reducing sludge in septic systems so that the muck doesn't need to be dug out as much.  EM doesn't do that.  It's a bacterial culture, that when cultivated properly, can overpower pathogenic types of biological activity (bacterias etc.) and reduces odors by converting chemical energies into lactic acid (primarily) instead of yucky, stinky stuff like ammonia, hydrogen sulfide, methane etc.

 * The article is accusative There are many claims made in the article regarding Dr. Higa's (or his agents) claims.  There is only one document used as a reference to support those claims, and the article is primarily about sustainable farming and agriculture, not about municipal sewage processing systems.  There are some passing references in Dr. Higa/Dr. Parrs article that mention using EM to process municipal waste, but no specific claims regarding the use of EM as a drop-in treatment for existing septic systems.  His discussion of municipal waste is centered around the usability of the output, and doesn't relate to the technical aspects of existing waste management systems.  Over two-thirds of the wikipedia article discusses a use for the product for which I see no supporting documentation as a claim made by the manufacturer, the inventor or anyone who could be reasonably considered an agent for the product. The entire portion of the wikipedia article that discusses EM as a drop-in treatment for existing septic systems should be removed or at least reduced to articles that mention EM specifically and that involve cultivation of the bacteria.  It should be sufficient to state that it is not recommended as a drop-in treatment for existing septic systems and then to have some discussion of how lactic acid bacteria are being used around the world to process faeces into compost.

 * Claimed benefits The section entitled "Claimed Benefits" references an article that lacks documentation of methods used in testing and the claimed benefits listed are not even related to EM specifically.  It's misleading.  Also, since scientific methods aren't mentioned, it's reasonable to assume that the author didn't take the time to learn how to cultivate the product.  Information for cultivating this product is freely available from the manufacturer and from other sources to anyone who is actually interested in how EM work.

 * Cost Aspects section is pure conjecture EM is a bacterial culture.  One teaspoon full of the culture is all that is required to produce as much product as anyone could ever use. Regardless, the entire Cost Aspects section is based on an article that doesn't reference the product specifically, nor is it written in a way that would indicate that the author has any experience with lactic acid bacteria and their effectiveness at safely and cleanly converting human waste to wonderful, rich, beautiful compost.

 * Soil Micro-biology Dr. Higa's (and other's) work is related primarily to soil-biology and sustainable agriculture.  There are many well-documented instances of their Effective Micro-organisms being used around the world to clean up all kinds wastes.  It's not a drop-in solution for traditional sewage treatment systems and there are no referenced claims that it reduces solids.   Over two-thirds of the wikipedia article is spent discussing it's use as a drop-in treatment for existing septic systems, which is unfounded.  The remaining portion makes some non-specific, negatively oriented comments about his philosophy.  It doesn't accurately discuss his soil philosophy (of which EM is an integral part), nor does it discuss how incredibly awesome bokashi composting is.  The bokashi technique has been proven over and over, all around the world to produce excellent compost from all kinds of bio-waste in 2-6 weeks instead of the months and months that traditional aerobic composting requires.  That is an amazing thing and it should be reflected here.

There are many inaccuracies in this article. Also, it just seems argumentative and hostile towards Dr. Higa, and his philosophies in general. After reading the Wikipedia article, I am led to believe that Dr. Higa makes all kinds of wild claims about the usage of EM as a drop-in treatment for existing septic systems, which is simply not true. If you read Dr. Higa's writings, then you would know that he has some interesting theories about the types of biological activity that occurs in different kinds of soil and that he believes bacteria are capable of reducing certain kinds of problems with all kinds of bio-waste. He makes some very specific statements about EM, which are easily proven, and are generally well-known and well-documented, and a bunch of philosophical kinds of statements about the environment and 'types' of bacteria and 'types' of soil, which are not so easy to prove. This article needs to reflect the facts clearly and without bias. As a reader, after reading the wikipedia article, I should have a general understanding of the well-known facts related to environmental lactic acid bacteria (EM) and their use in converting biological kinds of wastes into useful compost, and a general understanding of Dr. Higa's philosophy regarding soil biology and sustainable agriculture, and I shouldn't be led to believe that Wikipedia believes EM is good or bad because of a generalized statement in an article without scientific process about an unrelated group of products, as the Cost Aspects section states. N00q (talk) 04:06, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Documented Claims/Benefits The behavior of  Lactic acid bacteria (LAB) are well-known. They consume free chemical energy (such as carbohydrates and proteins) and produce lactic acid rather then ammonia or hydrogen sulfide, or methane, all of which stink.  It's not rocket science.  It's known stuff.  It's what Dr. Higa claims, and it's true.  It works.  EM contains some 80 different organisms but it's primarily just a culture of environmental lactic acid bacteria and some related organisms.  When poop is fermented with lactic acid bacteria, competing organisms are drowned out by the lactic acid that is produced, so that the output is hygenic.  It's good stuff, especially in agricultural communities, but it doesn't reduce sludge in septic systems, and I don't see any verified claim by any responsible entity to that effect.

 * Thanks for this. When I read your text, I see Dr. Higa, Dr. Higa, Dr. Higa... Should this article be all about what Dr. Higa said about EM? I thought it was wider than that. Anyhow, I am not that keen to be drawn in on a detailed and endless debate about EM in general. Perhaps the best solution would be to take out the parts about use of EM-based additives in sanitation, move it to a new article and then just leave a cross reference. Once the sanitation part is elsewhere on Wikipedia, then you could re-do the article as you like (provided other Wikipedia editors agree). What do you think, JMWt? The title of the new article could be "Additives for pits and septic tanks"? EvMsmile (talk) 12:48, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree. JMWt (talk) 12:49, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Moved section to pit additive JMWt (talk) 14:41, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Good, thanks.EvMsmile (talk) 23:44, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Lemma "effective microorganism"
The lemma 'effective microorganism' is weak, why? Because : 1) the referred to micro organisms species are named and classified already (see subsection: Possible constituents and hyperlinked WP articles) 2) There is no solid reference for made up statement in LEAD 3) the statement : "An effective microorganism (EM) refers to any of the predominantly anaerobic organisms" is not true and lacks any reference and any sense. Nowhere in Microbiology is a class of 'effective something'. 4) The adjective 'effective' in the cited 1st statement of the former LEAD is only a selling-argument of the company not a suitable description of the made up lemma 'effective microorganism (EM)' 5) recent reverts are rather vandalism, because they come with costs of deletion of additional references and sensefull slight adjustments of LEAD section, borrowed from the article of the trademarked product Coca Cola. --77.179.224.17 (talk) 23:34, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * You are changing the focus of this article, which is about a class of ineffective products, to a specific company's product. You are also making this article worse, by switching instances of the name to an unnecessary acronym, adding unsourced opinions such as 'vaguely states', switching out encyclopedic tone for informal english ('was made up by'), adding back flat out incorrect grammar ('in a four years organic farming field'), and restoring a statement that has been tagged as needing a source since 2009. You are welcome to improve the article, but these are the opposite of improvements. - MrOllie (talk) 02:04, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 * thank you for your contributions to WP! Your points can be addressed easily. Please consider that I do know of microbiology, biology etc.pp. professionally. Please, consider that english is not my first language. Please, fix any language issues in my edits. Please, see the German article on EM which I did start to shape to it's recent form, including category:pseudoscience, which I also did ad to this english article, first. The German article is way better than this article, and I do like to push up this one to the standard of the German one. I do like our co-operation, though!

Addressing your critiques: My critiques: You are welcome to protect and conserve the article, but the article has multiple issues, violates WP:LEAD and your protectionisms are the opposite of improvements. Thank you, --77.179.8.93 (talk) 10:10, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) "focus of this article, which is about a class of ineffective products" -- please give references for this 'class of ineffective products' that this article was about. Is there any "effective microorgansism" product or EM outside EMRO's trademarks and its licensees? If so, I would like to know the references and place them into this article to support the "focus of this article", which is not referenced at the moment in violation of WP:LEAD
 * 2) "switching instances of the name to an unnecessary acronym" -- do not get you here. In fact, the 1st statement in the lead section which narrows the lemma effective microorganism with EMRO's trademark (EM) is wrong.
 * 3) "adding un-sourced opinions such as 'vaguely states'" -- the cited statement in this context simply is vague, from a scientific point of view (taking into account that the autor of the cited statement is a science professor). But you could fix this statement easily?
 * 4) "switching out encyclopedic tone for informal english ('was made up by')" -- o.k. but this pseudoscience really was made up. How not to give this pseudoscience false reputation by an encyclopedic tone -- I am not a native english speaker, would you fix this problem, pls.?
 * 5) "restoring a statement that has been tagged as needing a source since 2009" -- pls. write out what you mean, do not get you here.
 * 1) As a start, would you please give a source for the 1st statement in the lead section: "An effective microorganism (EM) refers to any of the predominantly anaerobic organisms .." as I requested many times, since you seem to protect this false statement.
 * 2) This unreferenced statement seems to be rather sales dep. speach. of EMRO
 * 3) Term "Effective Microorganisms" was invented by founder of EMRO.
 * 4) Term "Effective Microorganisms" refers to a product of EMRO or its founder since its invention.
 * 5) The "(EM)" in the first statement in the lead section refers to a trademark by EMRO (EM and EM-1 are!) not to an acronym of article's lemma 'effective microorganism'  - the boundaries of EMRO's product line and universally framing the lemma go down hill by this false narrowing.
 * 6) There is no new class of 'effective m.' in Microbiology! Otherwise give refernces please.
 * 7) Named Microorganisms come in masses and(!) these masses of a class/species do not all have exact same characteristics (e.g. DNA, which varies even amongst a species) rather fulfil majority of qualifying points of a list of characteristics (per definition) - there is no such list for your proctected lemma "effective microorganism" in the 1st statement
 * 8) There is no good tradition for a very broad definition of a term/lemma "[xyz] microorganism refers to any of (..) anaerobic organisms" in a mixture! The EM (up to 80?) constituents are not specified - no source for that, nowhere! So, if 1st statement of this article was true, any micro-organism in a mixture of micro-organisms containing anaerobic or facultative anaerobic microbes could be referred to as "An effective microorganism (EM)", which is nonsensical.

not other possibility this comment to add than edit this. . . References 1, "EFFECTIVE MICROORGANISMS" trademark, http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=toc&state=4808%3A6wwvhy.1.1&p_search=searchss&p_L=50&BackReference=&p_plural=yes&p_s_PARA1=&p_tagrepl~%3A=PARA1%24LD&expr=PARA1+AND+PARA2&p_s_PARA2=EFFECTIVE+MICROORGANISMS&p_tagrepl~%3A=PARA2%24COMB&p_op_ALL=AND&a_default=search&a_search=Submit+Query&a_search=Submit+Query — Preceding unsigned comment added by Visionhelp (talk • contribs) 20:41, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Some of my links, infos, knowledge, until now: Trademarks, IMOs
Two trademarks are, currently, as far as I may understand: ´Effective Microorganisms EM´, and ´EFFECTIVE MICROORGANISMS´. Following products ´EM1´ or ´EM-1´, I don´t remind. (There will be more products names branded.) The last named, EM-1 or EM1, is with molasses the so called ´Activated EM´. Which is to multiply per doubling with water once a week, up to 30 times. The EMs is the base, the primary product. Which is possible to multiply: ´end-less´; but no must also. (Which ´seems´ is not liked to be revelated too open.) At least from one german own recipe EM-product producer I know he was taken to court, because of using the ´trademark´ name EM, which is NOT a trademark. Therefrom they did win at court. No such judge-call was won. But this is just not the intention. Sources of this are to find ´easy´ in the internet. I sadnessly did not save or document the links the sources. Sorry. And these have been ´just´ german sources, maybe some in english also. By the way: the product´s name should be written ´Effective Microorganisms´, my opinion.

Korean natural farming, Indigenous microorganisms In nature with rich soil can be extracted ´easily´ the indigenous microorganisms (IMOs) from there. This I did not see written there. But is to find in the internet, too, and instructions. Sorry, I cannot just do this efforts currently. Just saying, please. Thanks.
 * Indigenous microorganisms:

By the way: Worm compost is liked to be told as the best compost. Worms do have about 80 gut bacterias. Reminds to the 80 kinds of lactic acid bacterias in EMs. But I cannot really say, whether there is a connection. But if having such compost, the instruction to extract IMOs can be used to for from this soil, too, just saying once. Visionhelp (talk) 16:09, 6 July 2021 (UTC) I checked my saved links: here they are. (I recommend to look for in english reliable sources appearing, for not just to trust machine translated sites texts.) The first URL is the origin, the second link the translating site. Lactic acid bacterias and others: scientifically

http://www.biologie-online.eu/mikrobiologie/mikroorganismen.php http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=de&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.biologie-online.eu%2Fmikrobiologie%2Fmikroorganismen.php https://lactoseven.com/de/produkte/lacto-seven-4/ http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=de&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Flactoseven.com%2Fde%2Fprodukte%2Flacto-seven-4%2F
 * Microbiology
 * A product

https://hypersoil.uni-muenster.de/0/08/01.htm http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=de&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fhypersoil.uni-muenster.de%2F0%2F08%2F01.htm
 * Bacterias, Uni Münster (Germany)

Non-scientifically https://dschjoti.wordpress.com/tag/effektive-mikroorganismen/ http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=de&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fdschjoti.wordpress.com%2Ftag%2Feffektive-mikroorganismen%2F
 * An overview, simple

https://www.bunkahle.com/Aktuelles/Gesundheit/Effektive_Mikroorganismen_EM.html http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=de&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.bunkahle.com%2FAktuelles%2FGesundheit%2FEffektive_Mikroorganismen_EM.html
 * A more detailed overview

https://www.em-sanierung.de/5 http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=de&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.em-sanierung.de%2F5
 * Sanitation

https://www.em-sanierung.de/de/content/843/143/em-anwendungen/haushalt/schimmel http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=de&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.em-sanierung.de%2Fde%2Fcontent%2F843%2F143%2Fem-anwendungen%2Fhaushalt%2Fschimmel (The translation website http://free-website-translation.com/?de) Here still the two links as sources of the brand-names (from the revisions-history, in the english and the german article): EM Effektive Mikroorganismen https://register.dpma.de/DPMAregister/marke/registerHABM?lang=en EFFECTIVE MICROORGANISMS https://trademarks.justia.com/789/44/effective-microorganisms-78944425.html Visionhelp (talk) 17:25, 7 July 2021 (UTC) The Wikipedia article Bokashi contains infos about EMs also, and IMOs and links (in References). --Visionhelp (talk) 09:12, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * On mold

Is the wiki biased? Is it lacking material on the short-term benefits, the household uses and the scalability of the bokashi method?
The probable biased treatment of the subject is a concern, regarding the few possibilities and the lack of waste management culture that applies in most of the world. 213.44.154.175 (talk) 10:22, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

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

title: Talk:Effective microorganism


text:
Catharina Felser

Catharina Felser (born 2 October 1982) is a German race car driver born in Siegburg, North Rhine-Westphalia. Catharina started her career in karting during 1997, moving up to Austrian Formula Ford in 2000. Her performances there resulted in one race in German Formula Ford, also during 2000. In 2001, she competed in German Formula BMW.

Felser continued to advance her career, stepping up to German Formula Three in 2002, driving for the van Amersfoort and KMS teams. She moved to the Trella team in 2003 before leaving the series and single-seater racing in 2004, joining the German Seat Leon Cupra Cup to drive the number 16 car.

In 2008 Catharina Felser drove a KTM X-Bow in the GT4 European Series for Team Reiter Engineering.

title: Catharina Felser


text:
User talk:Survivor

I just cleaned up my talk page for privacy reasons. Please do not revert.

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Nuclear War Survival concern
Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Nuclear War Survival, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 180 days. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 14:42, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Your article submission Nuclear War Survival

Hello Survivor. It has been over six months since you last edited your article submission, entitled Nuclear War Survival.

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply and remove the  or  code. Please note that Articles for Creation is not for indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, copy this code:, paste it in the edit box at this link , click "Save", and an administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. HasteurBot (talk) 12:03, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:00, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:Survivor


text:
Ramsgreave and Wilpshire railway station

Ramsgreave and Wilpshire is a railway station on the Ribble Valley Line that serves the villages/suburbs of Ramsgreave and Wilpshire, just north of Blackburn in Lancashire, England. The station is 2+3/4 mi north of Blackburn railway station.

The present station was built 400 yard south of the original Wilpshire station which served the Ribble Valley Line until its closure just before the Beeching Axe in 1962. When the line was re opened in 1994 a new site had to be found, due to the construction of houses which blocked access to the old station. The platforms which served as the old Wilpshire Station (also known as "Wilpshire for Ribchester") can still be seen.

Facilities
The station is unstaffed, but has a ticket machine on the south platform, as of 2020. There are waiting shelters and customer help points on each platform; automatic announcements also provide real-time train running information. The ramps to both platforms have steps, so no step-free access is available.

Services
The station is operated by Northern Trains, and is served by a daily hourly service northbound to Clitheroe and southbound to Blackburn and Manchester Victoria, with extra trains during the morning peak.

On Saturdays (June 2024 onwards) two trains operate from Rochdale through Manchester Victoria and along the Ribble Valley Line via Clitheroe and Hellifield and onwards towards Ribblehead. (This replaces the previous Dales Rail service from Blackpool/Preston to Hellifield and Carlisle).


text:
Thorpe-le-Soken

Thorpe-le-Soken is a village and civil parish in the Tendring district of Essex, England. It is located east of Colchester, west of Walton-on-the-Naze and Frinton-on-Sea, and north of Clacton-on-Sea.

History
Since 2002, archaeological investigations ahead of construction work have uncovered traces of Palaeolithic (early Clactonian 424,000-400,000 BC), Mesolithic, early Neolithic and Roman rural settlements. Thorpe-le-Soken's contiguous history can be traced back to Saxon times. In c. 970, King Æthelstan confirmed the grant of Eduluesnaesa – combined estate of Kirby, Thorpe and Walton – to St Paul’s. Soken meaning a jurisdiction with separate taxation and managerial responsibilities.

There has been a manor house at Thorpe since about 1150. The old manor house, Thorpe Hall, was owned by the Leake family, and rebuilt in the 1820s by the wealthy lawyer J.M. Leake. It was later leased by Frederic Foaker, owner of Sneating Hall at Kirby-le-Soken. Thorpe Hall was the home of Viscount Byng of Vimy (Governor General of Canada 1921–6), and his wife Evelyn Byng, Viscountess Byng of Vimy, who relandscaped the gardens.

Between 1690 and 1720 Thorpe housed a community of several dozen Huguenot refugees fleeing persecution in France, who are thought to have stayed at the large house still called Comarques. The house is now home to the Adams family. (Source: Huguenot Society records.) This was also the home of the famous Midlands author Arnold Bennett just before and during the First World War. (Source: contemporary issues of Essex County Standard, Arnold Bennett's Correspondence.)

The local church, St Michael's, was shown in series 2 episode 4 of the BBC's Who Do You Think You Are?, where comedian Julian Clary traced a family member to the church.

Facilities
Thorpe-le-Soken has Rolph CofE Primary School in the High Street, and the Thorpe Campus of Tendring Technology College (Years 7, 8 and 9) in Landermere Road. The village is served by Thorpe-le-Soken railway station. The village had a post office at 29 High Street, but this closed c. 2008 and was converted into a house. The village hosts several shops, pubs and eateries.

Notable residents

 * Field Marshal Lord Byng of Vimy GCB GCMG MVO (1862–1935), an officer who served with distinction during World War I and as Governor General of Canada, lived in Thorpe-le-Soken during his retirement and died at the now demolished Thorpe Hall. He is buried at the 11th-century parish church of St. Leonard's in Beaumont-cum-Moze.
 * Sir William Gull (1816 – 1890), Royal physician, and suggested as a suspect in the Jack the Ripper murders, is buried in St Michael's churchyard.
 * Arnold Bennett (1867 – 1931), novelist and playwright
 * Nigel Henderson (artist) (1 April 1917 – 15 May 1985), artist and photographer.
 * Sir Eduardo Luigi Paolozzi (7 March 1924 – 22 April 2005), sculptor and artist

title: Thorpe-le-Soken


text:
Löwenbräu Brewery

Löwenbräu is a brewery in Munich. Its name is German for "lion's brew". Most Löwenbräu beers are marketed as being brewed according to the Reinheitsgebot, the Bavarian beer purity regulation of 1516.

History
Löwenbräu claims to have been founded around 1383. In 1524, Jörg Schnaitter, a pierprew (beer brewer), is mentioned in connection with the property at the address 17 Löwengrube. The brewery was first mentioned in 1746 in the Munich tax records. The lion emblem originates from a 17th-century fresco in the brewing house, depicting Daniel in the lions' den.

In 1818, Georg Brey, a brewer of peasant origins, bought the brewery, which began to grow under his management. In 1826, brewing operations began moving to a new location on Nymphenburger Strasse; the move was completed in 1851. By 1863, Löwenbräu had become the largest brewery in Munich, producing a quarter of the city's beer output.

The brewery was formally incorporated in 1872 under the name Aktienbrauerei zum Löwenbräu. As brewer and owner, Ludwig Brey acquired the neighboring properties of Nikolaus Nassl, a Bierwirt (seller of beer). By Brey's order in 1882 and 1883, the Rank brothers built the Löwenbräukeller, according to the plans of Albert Schmidt on the brewery's property. The grand opening of the Löwenbräukeller was on 14 June 1883. In 1886, the lion trademark was registered. Around the turn of the century, Löwenbräu was the largest brewery in Germany, though strongly dependent on exports.

The export business was affected by World War I; for example the Löwenbräu London Depot closed for the duration, making its employees redundant.

In 1921, Löwenbräu merged with Unionsbräu Schülein & Cie and Munich Bürgerbräu, two other breweries. These mergers brought Löwenbräu more property, including the Bürgerbräukeller. In 1923, this beer hall became noted as the location of the unsuccessful Beer Hall Putsch which Adolf Hitler led against the government of the German state of Bavaria, of which Munich was the state capital. In 1928, the company's beer production first exceeded a million hectoliters per year. The supervisory board of the new corporation included Wilhelm von Finck, one of the owners of Bürgerbräu, and Joseph Schülein, who was Jewish. Schülein's later tenure as the company's owner led the Nazis to deride Löwenbräu beer as "Jewsbeer". An Allied air raid in 1945 destroyed the brewery. After the war, an agreement was reached with the Schülein heirs, who had fled to the United States, to ensure the survival of the brewery. It resumed the export of beer in 1948—first to Switzerland.

Löwenbräu's market position in Upper Bavaria, and financing made possible by its large real estate holdings, helped drive worldwide sales of their beer. In North America, Löwenbräu came to be considered the archetype of Munich beer, as shown by its presence at the Montreal Expo in 1967.

In 1975, Miller Brewing acquired the North American rights to Löwenbräu. After two years of exports, Miller began brewing Löwenbräu domestically with an Americanized recipe, and exports of Munich Löwenbräu to North America ceased. Anheuser-Busch, whose Michelob brand Miller had intended Löwenbräu to compete with, called the attention of regulators and the public to the changes Miller had made to mass-produce the beer for the American market, changes which introduced artificial ingredients that would not have been allowed under the German Reinheitsgebot that Miller had advertised Löwenbräu as being compliant with. No regulatory action was taken, but sales of Löwenbräu dropped to the point where it was clear the brand would not seriously compete with Michelob for the premium-beer segment.

The "Here's to Good Friends" jingle, originally performed by baritone jazz singer Arthur Prysock and then later by other various singers, including Clint Holmes, ran from 1977 to 1985.

In 1999, the North American rights to Löwenbräu passed to the Labatt Brewing Company, which began to brew Löwenbräu in Canada for both the Canadian and US markets with the same recipe used in Germany. Labatt's production of Löwenbräu ended in 2002 and exports of Munich Löwenbräu to North America resumed, although on a much smaller scale than had been the case before the Miller deal.

In 1997, Löwenbräu merged with Spaten-Franziskaner-Bräu to form the Spaten-Löwenbräu-Gruppe. Proposals to relocate the Löwenbräu brewery out of the Munich city center have failed, despite the company's international ownership. Today, Löwenbräu has one of the oldest beer gardens in Munich.

In 2014, Labatt regained the Canadian rights to Löwenbräu and began brewing Löwenbräu at their London, Ontario brewery, producing a smaller, 473 ml, can and soon after releasing a 341 ml bottle. In November 2014, Canadian sommelier, wine consultant and writer Jamie Drummond called for a boycott of the Canadian made Löwenbräu in the online publication "Good Food Revolution", claiming the new product to be inferior, different in taste to the original.

Oktoberfest
Löwenbräu beer has been served at every Oktoberfest in Munich since 1810. Because only beers that are brewed in Munich are permitted to be sold at Oktoberfest, Löwenbräu is one of six breweries represented, along with Augustinerbräu, Hofbräuhaus, Hacker-Pschorr, Paulaner, and Spaten. For the Oktoberfest, Löwenbräu brews a special Märzen beer called Oktoberfestbier or Wiesenbier ("meadow beer," referring to the Bavarian name of the festival site, the "Wiesn"). Two of the large tents at Oktoberfest, the Löwenbräu-Festhalle and the Schützenfestzelt, are sponsored by Löwenbräu.

Oktoberfest beer, also known as Münchner Bier ("Munich beer"), is a registered trademark of the Club of Munich Brewers; Bavarian beer (Bayrisches Bier) and Munich beer in particular (Münchner Bier) are protected by the European Union as a PGI.

Beers

 * Löwenbräu Original for Export
 * Löwenbräu Münchner Hell: a Munich Helles (5.2% ABV)
 * Löwenbräu Münchner Dunkel: a dark lager (5.5% ABV)
 * Löwenbräu Triumphator: a doppelbock (7.5% ABV)
 * Löwenbräu Alkoholfrei: a non-alcoholic beer
 * Löwenbräu Urtyp: a traditional helles (5.4% ABV)
 * Löwenbräu Pils (formerly "der Löwenbräu"): the hoppiest of Munich's pilsners (5.4% ABV)
 * Löwenbräu Dunkle Weisse: a hefeweizen (5.2% ABV)
 * Löwenbräu Löwen Weisse Hell: a hefeweizen (5.2% ABV)
 * Löwenbräu Radler Beer: a radler (2.5% ABV)
 * Löwenbräu Oktoberfestbier: a Märzen brewed for Oktoberfest (6.1% ABV)

title: Löwenbräu Brewery


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peace Burial at Sea

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was keep. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 02:20, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Peace Burial at Sea
Non notable and non factual. --Tagishsimon (talk)
 * You might want to check out Peace burial at sea from April 13's vfd's, which suggested merging with this one, IIRC. Grutness|hello? [[Image:Grutness.jpg|25px|]] 00:54, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Delete: article fails to establish notability according to WP:NMG - they have one album out on a minor indie label. What's more, most of this seems to be gibberish anyway, and seems like vandalism from Special:Contributions/81.23.1.18: . For example: "John, thought to be the son of a Northumbrian rag and bone seller, admitted to having conducted a physical relationship with an oak tree (which he named "Graeme") in a TV documentary, the issue was brought up in the House of Commons." In four months there's been no real information provided other than the members of the band. --bainer 07:17, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, not notable, band vanity, sections of the article looks like pure nonsense. Megan1967 08:16, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, then, reluctantly. Shame it's a real band, otherwise it would look good on BJAODN. Actually, it probably should go there anyway. Married a turnip, indeed. Grutness|hello? [[Image:Grutness.jpg|25px|]] 13:28, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Patent nonsense. Not remotely notable. I lived in Newcastle for 20 years and never heard of them. Anilocra 09:05, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. They are real - I saw them play last night, and thought they were pretty good. They may be non-notable now, but they might become less so soon. I have cleared up the page of the rubbish though. Grinner 15:16, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. They do meet the notability criteria according to WP:NMG having gone on a "national concert tour in a large or medium-sized country". --GF 09:45, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.


text:
User:Triddle/uploaded images

These are images found by User:Triddle that have been contributed to Wikipedia. For original creations see Category:Photographs by User:Triddle.

title: User:Triddle/uploaded images


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Justin Sofio

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was keep. Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 20:37, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Justin Sofio
Delete. Anyone have a clear notability line in this area? This seems pretty lightweight to me. Mwanner 23:26, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment Was never added to VfD it seems, adding it today. Hedley 11:51, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep as article creator. Professional racing drivers are notable at all levels. Google brings 175 results for "Justin Sofio" but he is included in the Speedsportmag database. A page featuring him would be here. Hedley 15:25, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Average car racer. (since we have an average professor rule, why not an average sportsman rule?) Average Earthman 12:51, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, this is borderline. Google doesnt show up any notable achievements by this driver. Megan1967 13:11, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Per the site I given above, Sofio has won several karting championships and a Formula Toyota Atlantic title. Professional championship winners are notable. Hedley 14:38, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Would you hazard a guess at how many drivers would qualify under the standard you're proposing? Mwanner 15:54, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * A lot. Professional racing drivers are all notable. I'm no inclusionist, but if they have competed in a professional event and especially won one, they are notable. People will look in an encyclopaedia for information on a racing driver. Thousands of people attend racing events, all who will see the drivers as quite important. I wouldn't of added an article if it wasn't important. Hedley 16:39, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. As it stands the article fails to note Sofio's numerous titles at various levels, or his vast karting experience. I would add to it if this article was done the justice necessary. Hedley 16:40, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep and cleanup, winning a championship race is notable. Mgm|(talk) 19:53, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep as per Hedley. Oh, and the best way to stop something being deleted, Hedley, is to add good material to it, so I'd encourage you to do so and not wait until the end of this vfd--it'll probably be worth the effort. Meelar (talk) 20:15, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete until and unless the supposed notability is included in the article. The article doesn't seem to know what state he was born in, and indicates only that he raced in one race.  BTW, he gets 90 Google hits.  RickK 20:27, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * I have re-written the article to add extra information. I can't see any lack of notability now. Hedley 21:31, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * The article says he's a mechanic. It makes no mention of what he might have won.  RickK 21:47, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * I still feel that it fails to pass the "more notable than the average professor" test. Thousands of people attend college lectures, all of whom (well, most) will see the professors as quite important.  But most of the professors do not rate encyclopedia articles.  Further, is this really the place that most race fans would turn to for info on drivers?  Should WP duplicate the Speedsportmag database? -- Mwanner 21:53, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * Why not? Thats like saying, "Should we duplicate 1911 Britannica's articles?" or "Should we duplicate ~any site~ with information on the USA?". Wikipedia is aiming to become the sum of all human knowledge, and why not everything is important in that sum, people may look here for info on a driver. Speedsportmag, which you refer to, doesn't provide anything other than Sofio's one race. Wikipedia provides more and so a race fan would possibly look here. As for professors, it is a completely different issue in that they aren't important out of that local area. I'm nowhere near where Formula Toyota Atlantic and Binder Racing are based, but to me the information on Sofio is relevant. Hedley 22:39, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Looks like he won the same event this weekend, also as per Mgm Rx StrangeLove 23:07, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Professional motor racer with reasonable career success. Capitalistroadster 03:35, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, Hedley seems to know what he's talking about when he says "Professional racing drivers are notable at all levels" and a lot of people would want to look them up. Kappa 21:55, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, article has improved since original listing, and now seems to pass all reasonable thresholds. Pcb21| Pete 06:57, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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


text:
User talk:Sj7700

Hello, I noticed that you uploaded Thumb EXTERIOR.jpg. Please attach a image copyright tag to that image's description page. For more information, please see our image use policy. Thank you. Zzyzx11 | Talk 23:25, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has now been reverted or removed. Please use Sandbox for any other tests you want to do, since testing in articles will be reverted quickly. Please see the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks.

Please don't blank template pages. - Stoph 01:07, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Regarding Bill O'Reilly (commentator), please do not add pov check tags without a brief explanation on the talk page. Thanks. —Viriditas | Talk 20:15, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

title: User talk:Sj7700


text: Template:MT-FedRep

title: Template:MT-FedRep


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bus models used in New York City

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was keep. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 02:18, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Bus models used in New York City
An unencyclopedic, unintelligible garbled list. RickK 23:29, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Needs to be cleaned up, that cant happen if it is deleted. There is general consensus that rolling stock for major metropolitan public transportation systems is notable. Think about how many billions of passenger miles these busses have carried. Klonimus 03:50, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * There is general consensus that rolling stock for major metropolitan public transportation systems is notable. On what planet would that be? Certainly not here on Earth. --Calton | Talk 22:24, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Cleanup and keep. Verifiability established. Article subject is not nonsense, vanity or original research. --Centauri 05:58, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Since those three standards are not the only disqualifiers for an article, that's pretty much an immaterial statement.
 * Keep or merge with the New York City Bus System. Unlike the bus routes, this information is not readily available on the company's website, so the argument for keeping this is stronger. Information is subject to change though and will need frequent updates. Sjakkalle 07:39, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment What is the relationship between this article and this site: http://www.bustalk.net/fleet/ ? They're not identical, but... Dpbsmith (talk) 20:20, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete outright. Transport trivia that doesn't even belong in a NYC transport article. --Calton | Talk 22:24, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep and cleanup to something like New York City Subway rolling stock (though that needs more prose about the history, some of which can be moved or copied from New York City Subway). We have articles on automobile models, presumably including obscure ones of which only a handful have been made, and these have carried many more people. We have articles on locomotive models of which only a handful have been produced, and one of those got a unanimous keep on VFD. --SPUI (talk) 23:39, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. It's only a list of bus models. It's not an encyclopaedic topic! --Neigel von Teighen 23:41, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge per Sjakkalle. Kappa 01:33, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not particularly notable and nearly impossible to maintain in the long run anyway.  Trivial and unencyclopedic. Indrian 03:59, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. There's enough transport enthusiasts out there to maintain this stuff. JuntungWu 14:51, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep and Merge with Bus models used in New York City Transit--Pacific Coast Highway 23:40, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)(7:40pm EST)
 * This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.


text:
Committee on Social Thought

The John U. Nef Committee on Social Thought is one of several PhD-granting committees at the University of Chicago. It was started in 1941 by economic historian John Ulric Nef along with economist Frank Knight, anthropologist Robert Redfield, and University President Robert Maynard Hutchins.

The Committee
The committee is interdisciplinary and it is not centered on any specific topic; rather, the committee has, since its inception, drawn together noted academics and writers to "foster awareness of the permanent questions at the origin of all learned inquiry".

Noted members
Notable past members of the committee have included Eliot, Bellow, Coetzee, Hayek, and Fogel have been awarded Nobel prizes.
 * writers Saul Bellow, J. M. Coetzee, T. S. Eliot, and Adam Zagajewski
 * political theorists Hannah Arendt, Allan Bloom, and Mark Lilla,
 * classicist David Grene,
 * historians Marc Fumaroli, Marshall G. S. Hodgson, David Nirenberg, and Paul Wheatley,
 * sociologist Edward Shils,
 * sinologist Anthony C. Yu,
 * anthropologist Victor Turner,
 * poet and philologist A. K. Ramanujan,
 * philosophers Vincent Descombes, Mircea Eliade, Leszek Kołakowski, Jacques Maritain, Yves Simon, Paul Ricoeur, Stephen Toulmin, and Jean-Luc Marion.
 * economists Robert Fogel and Friedrich Hayek.

Current faculty
Current faculty include religion scholar Wendy Doniger, theologian David Tracy, sociologist Hans Joas, literary theorist Thomas Pavel, theorist of German literature David Wellbery, classicist James M. Redfield, philosopher and psychoanalyst Jonathan Lear, philosopher Robert B. Pippin, classicist Laura M. Slatkin, historian of science Lorraine Daston, physician and philosopher Leon Kass (former chairman of the President's Council on Bioethics), political theorist Nathan Tarcov, art historian Andrei Pop, poet Rosanna Warren, philosopher Gabriel Richardson Lear, historian Joel Isaac, historian Jonathan Levy, classicist Mark Payne, and political theorist Jennifer Pitts.

Website

 * Committee on Social Thought

title: Committee on Social Thought