text:
Between the Lines (TV series)

Between the Lines is a television police drama series created by J. C. Wilsher and produced by World Productions for the BBC. It was first shown on BBC1 between 1992 and 1994, running for three series.

The show centred on the eventful life of Detective Superintendent Tony Clark, played by Neil Pearson. Clark was an ambitious member of the Complaints Investigation Bureau (CIB), an internal organisation of the Metropolitan Police that investigates complaints against officers as well as claims of corruption inside the police force. Along the way Clark had to overcome strong influence from his superiors and problems in his private life, most notably the break-up of his marriage following an affair with WPC Jenny Dean (Lesley Vickerage). Throughout the series Clark was assisted by colleagues Harry Naylor (Tom Georgeson) and Maureen 'Mo' Connell (Siobhan Redmond).

The show became a surprise hit for the BBC, winning a British Academy Television Award (BAFTA) for Best Drama Series in 1994. In 2000 it was voted into the 100 Greatest British Television Programmes by the British Film Institute. The series was reviewed in an episode of the BBC documentary series Call the Cops, which stated the series had "found a way of getting to grips with the corruption scandals of the 1990s".

Executive producer Tony Garnett had begun his career as an actor before becoming a producer in the late 1960s. His credits included The Wednesday Play and Play for Today. Following Between the Lines, he went on to produce several popular and notable series including This Life (1996–97), Ballykissangel and The Cops (1998–2000).

Plot
Clark's work as a lead officer in CIB was the focus of the first two series. In the first series his boss was Deakin, a tough ex-RUC Northern Irish policeman. At the end of the first series, Deakin was revealed to be a corrupt officer himself. He left the force but remained a recurring character, working freelance for the security services and others, sometimes in conflict with Clark and sometimes assisting him. At the start of the third series (after a dramatic shoot-out at the end of the second) Clark, Naylor and Connell leave the police force and work in the murky world of private security, far-right political groups and espionage.

The third series ends with the betrayal of Clark and Naylor who had been masquerading as mercenaries. The betrayal is made by Connell in league with Deakin, their former boss and nemesis. It is unclear whether Clark and Naylor have died as the show ended on a cliffhanger. Rumours of a remake did circulate for some years, but Pearson confirmed in 'Watching the Detectives' that he had wanted a 'final' ending at the time and would never return to the role.

Between The Lines was one of the first British TV dramas to include a bisexual character (whose sexual orientation is incidental rather than central to the plot). Maureen (Mo) Connell (Siobhan Redmond) has two significant romantic partners during the series, a serious boyfriend in season 2, and later on a long-term girlfriend. While some other police officers are briefly shown making disapproving comments (e.g. when she brings her girlfriend as plus-one to a police social), her bisexuality is shown as completely accepted by close colleagues, if a subject of occasional friendly banter (e.g. Mo mentions having a date that night, Tony asks "girl or boy?" and she replies sarcastically "one of each").

Background
Until the 1970s, complaints against the police in Britain were dealt with internally, with no outside oversight, leading to public dissatisfaction amid allegations that misconduct and corruption were not being effectively dealt with. The 1976 Police Act established the Police Complaints Board, an independent review body, but following the Scarman Report in 1982 this was replaced by the more effective Police Complaints Authority, creating the background of the series. However, even today, under the current Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC), the majority of complaints against the police are dealt with internally. The IPCC investigates the most serious cases and deals with appeals. At the time of the series in the 1990s, the department of the Metropolitan Police responsible for internal investigations was the Complaints Investigation Bureau (CIB); it has subsequently been replaced by the Directorate of Professional Standards (DPS).

The two first series of Between the Lines is a dramatisation of the work of the CIB. In the third series focus is shifted more towards the secret services and MI5 in particular. John Deakin, whose shadow is present throughout all three series, has a past in the Ulster police. He is the "fireproof" high rank detective who decides which other high ranked detectives that may use which methods. Tony manages to discover who he really is, but not good enough. Deakin also has contacts in the secret services. And the final two episodes ("The End User" 1 & 2) deals with a story of illegal weapon smuggling to Northern Ireland. Although set primarily in London, one episode was filmed partly in Bolton, with the Town Hall appearing in several scenes.

Guest stars in the series included many well-known British actors who have gone on to star in other major television dramas and/or movies, including Daniel Craig, James Nesbitt, Jerome Flynn, Bernard Hill, David Morrissey, Jaye Griffiths, Paul Brooke, Francesca Annis, Sylvestra Le Touzel, John Hannah, Michael Kitchen, David Hayman, Hermione Norris, Edward Tudor-Pole, Ray Winstone, Larry Lamb, Hugh Bonneville, Marc Warren and Jonny Lee Miller. Most of them were unknown or less known, prior to their appearances in this series.

Cast

 * Neil Pearson as Detective Superintendent Tony Clark
 * Tom Georgeson as Detective Inspector Harry Naylor
 * Siobhan Redmond as Detective Sergeant Maureen "Mo" Connell
 * Tony Doyle as Chief Superintendent John Deakin
 * Robin Lermitte as Detective Superintendent David Graves
 * David Lyon as Commander Brian Huxtable
 * Lesley Vickerage as WPC Jenny Dean
 * Hugh Ross as Commander Graham Sullivan
 * John Shrapnel as Deputy Assistant Commissioner Dunning
 * Jerome Flynn as Detective Sergeant Eddie Hargreaves

Broadcast
In Ontario, Canada, the program was retitled Inside the Line because the broadcaster TVOntario already had a current affairs program called Between the Lines and did not want them confused.

DVD release
The complete series of Between The Lines has been released on DVD (Region 2) by 2 Entertain/Cinema Club with music edits.

title: Between the Lines (TV series)


text:
Henry Polic II

Henry Albert Polic II (February 20, 1945 – August 11, 2013) was an American stage, screen, and voice actor, best known as Jerry Silver on Webster.

He earned his Master of Fine Arts degree from Florida State University and later served in the military police at Fort Riley in Kansas. While at Florida State University he starred in many stage productions including Our Town. He also was an active member of Tau Kappa Epsilon fraternity. In 1975, Polic was a regular cast member on Mel Brooks' short-lived television comedy, When Things Were Rotten. Polic also had a regular role as Dracula in Monster Squad (1976).

In the 1980s, Polic was often seen as a celebrity guest player on various game shows. His most frequent guest spots were on the various incarnations of Pyramid, as he appeared multiple times on The $25,000 Pyramid and the editions of The $100,000 Pyramid hosted by Dick Clark and John Davidson for producer Bob Stewart. Polic did various other work for Stewart, hosting the game show Double Talk in 1986, a pilot for a revival of Stewart's Eye Guess called Eye Q in 1988, and sharing announcing duties with Johnny Gilbert and Dean Goss on the latter edition of The $100,000 Pyramid. His specialties included foreign and regional accents, ballroom dancing and baritone singing.

From the early 1990s until his death, Polic was perhaps best known as the original British-accented voice of the Scarecrow in Batman: The Animated Series. Originally he had a deep, gruff voice, but later made his voice a bit higher for the role. Polic also worked at Florida State University as a guest star in the School of Theatre's production of A Christmas Carol, playing Ebenezer Scrooge in 1996.

Polic died on August 11, 2013, of cancer. A US Army Vietnam era veteran, he is interred at National Memorial Cemetery of Arizona in Phoenix.

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

title: Henry Polic II


text:
User talk:Remb88

Vandalism
Stop adding vanity to Wikipedia. You are persistent, but you will be blocked if you do so again. Feel free to include your personal details on your user page. Hedley 21:12, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

title: User talk:Remb88


text: User talk:81.77.221.71

title: User talk:81.77.221.71


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ideepthroat

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep (no consensus), but possibly move. Dmcdevit·t 07:02, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Ideepthroat
Marked as speedy, doesn't qualify. Mu.  Grue  21:13, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Fear to google it (and Google test doesn't really work for porn anyway), but... would certainly appear to be non-notable porn site. Delete.  Dcarrano 00:02, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not notable. --Vizcarra 00:58, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
 * No vote. 38,400 Google hits. Fairly notable site but I don't know enough about it to cast an informed vote. 23skidoo 06:02, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete website advertising. JamesBurns 09:13, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep famous porn site. Redwolf24 09:15, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Without even looking, I think it's that Heather chick, and she rules.  Porn rocks. Proto t c 12:37, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. If kept, this article would be renamed, but for the record: porn is not inherently notable. There are so many internet sites that to be included here the site must really be notable; i.e. above the pack. Is this one? Not as far as I can tell. --Scimitar parley 16:32, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Move. Should create article Heather Harmon. With the website notes listed there.  Heather has a large following within the file sharing community.  Also the article should be cleaned up.Wynler 21:43, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Almost a household name if you cross by a college campus.
 * Move to Heather Harmon article. Pavel Vozenilek 23:50, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.


text: User talk:84.100.42.59

title: User talk:84.100.42.59


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Star wars hutt

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. CDC  (talk)  00:12, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Star wars hutt
Marked as speedy, doesn't qualify. Delete, non notable, vanity.  Grue  21:13, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. Thunderbrand 21:21, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete worthless. --PhilipO 21:45, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Jabba the Hutt. Redirects are fun and cheap. And have a lovely floral scent. --Scimitar 21:28, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Vain - Forbsey 23:57, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Just FYI, Stardestroyer.net is a lot more notable than this, and it's article got deleted. And 200 articles in their databank doesn't compare to Star Wars Wiki's 4,800+. Also, we shouldn't redirect it, because it simply wouldn't make sense. If anyone wanted to know about hutts, they'd search Hutt or Hutts.-LtNOWIS 08:04, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
 * It turns out stardestroyer.net didn't get deleted. Still delete, just not a notable enough website.-LtNOWIS 09:46, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.


text:
Laurence Foley

Laurence Michael Foley, Sr. (October 5, 1942 – October 28, 2002) was an American diplomat who was assassinated outside his home in Amman, Jordan.

Career
Born in Boston, Massachusetts, Foley became a Peace Corps volunteer in 1965, serving two years in India upon graduating from Boston State College, now University of Massachusetts. After earning a master's degree in Rehabilitation Counseling at San Francisco State University in 1969, he served as a probation officer in Contra Costa County, California. He later worked for the Peace Corps, serving as Associate Director of the Peace Corps program in the Philippines from 1980 to 1985. He served as Director of Administration at the Rehabilitation Services of Northern California until joining the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) in 1988. After working in Bolivia, Peru, and Zimbabwe, Foley became Supervisory Executive Officer of USAID/Jordan in 2000.

Death
On the morning of October 28, 2002, Foley was killed by gunshots from a 9 mm pistol as he walked to his car outside his Amman home. On December 14, two men, Libyan Salem bin Suweid and Jordanian Yasser Freihat, were arrested and charged with killing Foley. According to the Jordanian government, the men were paid to kill Foley by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, an Islamist militant leader, who at that time was the commander of the group later renamed al-Qaeda in Iraq. Though the men confessed, they later claimed they were forced to by Jordanian authorities.

In April 2004, the two men were sentenced to death for killing Foley. Zarqawi was sentenced to death in absentia for his role in the assassination, but was killed in a U.S. airstrike on June 7, 2006. Foley's assassins were executed on March 11, 2006. Another conspirator, Mohammed Ahmed Youssef al-Jaghbeer, was sentenced to death on July 13, 2009.

title: Laurence Foley


text:
Talk:Shaker Heights, Ohio

Category:Utopian communites
"Category:Utopian communities" refers to the history of Shaker Heights as a settlement with utopian goals. The category was initiated to group this type of community for research in planning and social movements. Dystopos 21:14, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Do you mean the North Union family (Shakers), which was utopian, or Shaker Heights, which is the suburban development? If so, Shaker Heights wasn't established by the Van Swearington's to be anything utopian.  It was established to be a highly restricted community by design (property size, architectural style); its racial make up was pretty much white through the 1940s with the exception on the first black family that settled in the community in the 1930s and promptly burned out of their home.  Shaker's socially progressive outlook on race an diversity was an outgrowth of early 1960s in Ludlow, not a planned model of the Vans' in the 19-teens.Stude62 01:15, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Both the 1822 Shaker settlement and the 1905 Garden City suburb would qualify as "Utopian communities" because they were both parts of wider movements that were idealistic in nature. The particular foibles of the Russells or Van Sweringen's, or the communities they established, belong to the specific history of the place, not to the category. Failed examples are still examples - and for utopian planning, failures are the only examples we've ever had. Dystopos 03:31, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

I can certainly see the argument for terming the Shaker settlement of Union Village a utopian community, although it's not exactly cut and dry. But there's no basis to apply the label to Shaker Heights. It was originally planned as a pleasant place to live with easy access by streetcar to the city. There may have been idealism as well as the profit motive here on the part of the Van Sweringens, but that alone does not make Shaker Heights a Utopian Community or even a failed Utopian Community.

Even if you were able to substantiate your claim with some kind of source saying the town was envisioned as a utopian community, it still wouldn't really belong in the category. Failed Utopian Community, planned originally utopian community, what have you. The current category gives the impression that Shaker Heights is, right now, some kind of Utopian Community, and that's just plain silly.

Right now I'm removing the category. If you can find something to substantiate the claim, then maybe it might be worth putting up with a qualifier. Theotherkg 19:33, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Its actually very nice...Shaker was very well planned, no two homes are identical, it incorporates man made lakes, a commuter rail service, it is an architectural gem.

Its holding up well, which Utopia would if there was such a thing. It is and has been integrated racially as Utopia would be…I suppose.

The city was preplanned and very restrictive in the onset, specific colors for home and even deed restriction on not just race actually nationality.

It also has stratification built in, the incomes to live in on certain street well defined, wealthy, moderate and middle income.

Whether shaker aspires to be utopian or not, it is worth emulating except for the 3% property tax.

Not Utopian but it is in fact one of kind, nothing in the US resembles it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.36.5.253 (talk) 22:08, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

New Section Idea
history and notable facts section is becoming crammed with all of the residents info. consider adding a "Notable Residents" section.

Un-Discussed Page Move
Please note that this article is about the city located in Ohio. Just because there is only one Shaker Heights does not merit dropping the ",Ohio." In addition, there are other articles with "Shaker Heights" in the title. Moving page back to the original and appropriate title. --HBot3 20:53, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Relative Location Map
In the Portuguese and Volpak languages, there was an intresting target map showing SH's relative location Sseballos (talk) 12:09, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Banner home logo about.gif
Image:Banner home logo about.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 23:06, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:GreenlakeShaker-crop.jpg
Image:GreenlakeShaker-crop.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 13:21, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Climate debate
I have been wondering about the removal about a year ago of the separate climate section and table for Shaker Heights. A point was made about Shaker Heights having the same climate classification as Cleveland, but because of the influence of the 300-foot Portage Escarpment, Cleveland typically falls under hot-summer continental (Dfa), whereas, in Shaker Heights the summer average temperature is under 22 degrees Celsius (it's closer to 21 while Cleveland's is around 23.) In addition, snowfall totals are not highlighted on any Wikipedia page east of Cleveland until Chardon, whereas Shaker Heights sees an average snowfall intermediate between the two (85-90 inches per year). While it is adjacent to Cleveland, it is important to note that the climate data should be changed and inserted. As this has been a point of contention in the past I wanted to bring it up again so that a consensus could be made before it is re-added to the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snowbunting14 (talk • contribs) 22:19, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Shaker Heights, Ohio. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080509163956/http://www.planning.org/25anniversary/planning/1988sep.htm to http://www.planning.org/25anniversary/planning/1988sep.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 22:17, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Shaker Heights, Ohio. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20020402231347/http://firstsuburbs.org/neohio/index.htm to http://www.firstsuburbs.org/neohio/index.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060619224705/http://www.mla.org/cgi-shl/docstudio/docs.pl?map_data_results to http://www.mla.org/cgi-shl/docstudio/docs.pl?map_data_results

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:25, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Shaker Heights, Ohio


text: User talk:80.99.104.166

title: User talk:80.99.104.166


text:
Peter Criss (album)

Peter Criss is the first solo album by Peter Criss, the drummer of American hard rock band Kiss. It was one of four solo albums released by the members of Kiss on September 18, 1978, but yet under the Kiss label, coming out alongside Ace Frehley, Gene Simmons and Paul Stanley. The album was produced by Vini Poncia, who went on to produce Dynasty (1979) and Unmasked (1980) for Kiss.

Songs
Four of the tracks ("I’m Gonna Love You", "Don't You Let Me Down", "That's the Kind of Sugar Papa Likes" & "Hooked on Rock 'n' Roll") were originally written in 1971 for Criss's pre-Kiss band, Lips. Criss also covers "Tossin' and Turnin'", which was a No. 1 hit for Bobby Lewis in the U.S. during the summer of 1961. The song was subsequently covered by Kiss on their 1979 tour.

Reception
Reviews for Peter Criss were mostly negative. In a retrospective assessment AllMusic called it "the most undistinguished of the bunch, lacking hooks on either the pop-metal rockers or the power ballads, as well as personality throughout." The album was the lowest charting of all the Kiss solo albums of 1978, reaching No. 43 on the US Billboard album chart. Of the four solo albums, Peter Criss was the only album to have two singles released from it: "Don't You Let Me Down" and "You Matter to Me", neither of which charted. In an interview in Goldmine magazine, Stanley and Simmons dismissed the record as being completely opposite of the aims of what Kiss music was about.

Track listing
All credits adapted from the original release. All songs were written by Peter Criss and Stan Penridge, except where noted.

Cover versions

 * Harvey Milk covered "Easy Thing" for their compilation album The Singles.
 * Awaken covered "I'm Gonna Love You" on their double album Party in Lyceum's Toilets.
 * The Slam covered "Hooked on Rock 'n Roll" on their album Hit It!.

Personnel

 * Peter Criss – lead vocals, drums on all songs except tracks 6–7, and 10, percussion on track 8, backing vocals

 * Additional personnel
 * Allan Schwartzberg – drums on tracks 6-7 and 10
 * Bill Bodine – bass guitar on tracks 1-5 and 9
 * Neil Jason – bass guitar on tracks 6-7 and 10
 * Art Munson – guitars on tracks 1-5 and 9
 * Stan Penridge – guitars on 1-5 and 8–9, backing vocals
 * Elliot Randall – guitars on "Easy Thing" and "I Can't Stop the Rain"
 * John Tropea – guitars on tracks 6-7 and 10
 * Brendan Harkin – guitars on "Easy Thing"
 * Steve Lukather – guitar solo on "That's the Kind of Sugar Papa Likes" and "Hooked on Rock and Roll"
 * Bill Cuomo – keyboards 1-5 and 9
 * Richard Gerstein – keyboards on tracks 6–7, and 10
 * Davey Faragher, Tommy Faragher, Danny Faragher, Jimmy Faragher, Maxine Dixon, Maxine Willard, Julia Tillman, Vini Poncia, Annie Sutton, Gordon Grody – backing vocals
 * Tom Saviano – Horns arranged
 * Michael Carnahan – saxophone solo on "Tossin' and Turnin'", baritone sax on "Hooked on Rock 'n' Roll"
 * Lenny Castro – percussion on "Tossin' and Turnin'" and "Don't You Let Me Down"

 * Production
 * Mike D. Stone – engineer at the Record Plant, New York City
 * Eraldo Carugati – album artwork

Release history

 * Casablanca NBLP-7122 (September 18, 1978): 1st LP issue (with poster)
 * Casablanca NBPIX-7122 (September 18, 1978): US picture disc
 * Casablanca 826 917-2 (1988): US 1st CD release.
 * Mercury 314 532 386-2 (September 16, 1997): Remastered CD (with poster)
 * Universal Music B0020537-01 (2014): Remastered LP (with poster)

title: Peter Criss (album)


text: Template:Campaignbox Theban–Spartan War

title: Template:Campaignbox Theban–Spartan War


text:
Mixed marriage

Mixed marriage or intermarriage may refer to:

 * Exogamy, the act of marrying outside of one's own social group (the opposite of endogamy)
 * Interracial marriage, between people of different races
 * Miscegenation, a pejorative term for interracial sexual relationships
 * Interethnic marriage, between people of different ethnicities
 * Interfaith marriage, between people who adhere to different religions
 * Interdenominational marriage, between people who adhere to different sects of the same religion
 * Marital conversion, the act of converting to one's partner's religion in order to facilitate marriage and thereby assimilate into their society
 * Royal intermarriage, between people belonging to different royal dynasties
 * Transnational marriage, between people who are not citizens of the same country
 * Mixed-orientation marriage, between people who do not have corresponding sexual orientations
 * Lavender marriage, between a man and a woman who seek to feign heterosexuality
 * Mixed Marriage (play), a 1911 Irish play

title: Mixed marriage


text:
Ready an' Willing

Ready an' Willing is the third studio album by English hard rock band Whitesnake, released on 23 May 1980. It was the group's first album to feature drummer Ian Paice, a former colleague of singer David Coverdale and keyboard player Jon Lord in Deep Purple. It peaked at No. 6 on the UK Albums Chart, it was also the band's first to chart outside of the UK, reaching No. 32 in Norway and No. 90 in the US.

Release
The album featured two of the band's UK single-hits from that year: "Fool for Your Loving" had reached No. 13 in the charts on 26 April 1980, and the title-track, "Ready an' Willing (Sweet Satisfaction)" made No. 43 in July of the same year. On 2 August 1980 "Fool for Your Loving" peaked at No. 53 on the Billboard Hot 100; the song would later be re-recorded for the Slip of the Tongue album. The track "Blindman", initially from David Coverdale's first solo album White Snake, was re-recorded for this album.

Personnel
Credits are adapted from the album's liner notes.

title: Ready an' Willing


text:
FC Locomotive Tbilisi

FC Locomotive Tbilisi is a Georgian football club from the capital, Tbilisi. During the existence of the USSR the club was a part of the Lokomotiv Voluntary Sports Society. The club has strong connections with the Georgian Railways.

History
Locomotive was founded on 14 August 1936 as a part of Lokomotiv sports society. The club won Georgian championship in 1937, which gave them the permission to participate in USSR Top League. Their debut season in the highest level of the Soviet football championship came in 1938, where the club took 24th place out of 26 and got relegated. However, the Tbilisi-based club managed to get another promotion during the following season and participated in 1940 Soviet Top League. But they were eventually disqualified from the tournament. These were the only seasons when Locomotive managed to take part in the top league.

From the following years until the dissolution of USSR, the club moved between the lower divisions, played in the second the third divisions of the Soviet football championship.

Nodar Akhalkatsi, the coach of FC Dinamo Tbilisi and one of the most successful managers in the Soviet football, started his managing career in Locomotive. He managed the club from 1967 to 1970.

Since the post-Soviet era, Locomotive is one of the regular members of Erovnuli Liga. However, the club failed to win the championship. They were runners-up twice: in 2000-01 and in 2001–02 Umaglesi Liga. The club won Georgian Cup three times: in 2000, in 2002 and in 2005.

Some notable players of the club are: Levan Kenia, Levan Tskitishvili, Zurab Khizanishvili, Giorgi Arabidze, Giorgi Aburjania, Valeri Abramidze, Juan Diego González-Vigil, Giorgi Mamardashvili and Endika Bordas.

Honours

 * Erovnuli Liga
 * Winners (3): 1937, 1945, 1956
 * Runners-up (3): 1943, 2000-01, 2001-02
 * Georgian Cup
 * Winners (3): 1999–2000, 2001–02, 2004–05
 * Runners-up (2): 2000-01, 2019
 * Georgian Super Cup
 * Runners-up (1): 2005

Current squad
As of 12 May, 2024.

Reserve team
Lokomotive II — participant in a number of seasons in the second and third most important leagues in Georgia. Reached the final of the 2022 Georgian Cup as a fourth league team.

title: FC Locomotive Tbilisi


text: User talk:70.32.120.29

title: User talk:70.32.120.29


text:
Talk:Haspe–Voerde–Breckerfeld Light Railway

Untitled
I'm in the middle of copyediting several articles on German localities, railroads, etc. so I'm feeling a bit too lazy to go through this one myself. The most important issue is in the beginning; the article referes to the railway in the past tense, as if it had been taken out of use. The rest of the article, as well as the Breckerfeld article (which I'm editing now), refer to it as if it exists currently.

There seems to be a whole host of articles that, as far as I can tell, are loose translations from the German wikipedia. The last one I checked was the Breckerfeld article -- I don't speak German, but the parts in the English version of the article that were syntactically awkward had what looked like the same word order as in the German one. (I apologize for that wordy sentencee. I hope it made sense.) At least it gives those of us who like copyediting something to do. =) - Christiant 21:17, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
 * BTW, the last line before the external links section is really neat in its nonsense-ness. =) Christiant

I have tidied this up a bit and added some more. It really needs reworking from German Wiki. Bermicourt (talk) 21:40, 22 December 2008 (UTC)


text:
Quadrupole ion trap

In experimental physics, a quadrupole ion trap or paul trap is a type of ion trap that uses dynamic electric fields to trap charged particles. They are also called radio frequency (RF) traps or Paul traps in honor of Wolfgang Paul, who invented the device and shared the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1989 for this work. It is used as a component of a mass spectrometer or a trapped ion quantum computer.

Overview
A charged particle, such as an atomic or molecular ion, feels a force from an electric field. It is not possible to create a static configuration of electric fields that traps the charged particle in all three directions (this restriction is known as Earnshaw's theorem). It is possible, however, to create an average confining force in all three directions by use of electric fields that change in time. To do so, the confining and anti-confining directions are switched at a rate faster than it takes the particle to escape the trap. The traps are also called "radio frequency" traps because the switching rate is often at a radio frequency.

The quadrupole is the simplest electric field geometry used in such traps, though more complicated geometries are possible for specialized devices. The electric fields are generated from electric potentials on metal electrodes. A pure quadrupole is created from hyperbolic electrodes, though cylindrical electrodes are often used for ease of fabrication. Microfabricated ion traps exist where the electrodes lie in a plane with the trapping region above the plane. There are two main classes of traps, depending on whether the oscillating field provides confinement in three or two dimensions. In the two-dimension case (a so-called "linear RF trap"), confinement in the third direction is provided by static electric fields.

Theory
The 3D trap itself generally consists of two hyperbolic metal electrodes with their foci facing each other and a hyperbolic ring electrode halfway between the other two electrodes. The ions are trapped in the space between these three electrodes by AC (oscillating) and DC (static) electric fields. The AC radio frequency voltage oscillates between the two hyperbolic metal end cap electrodes if ion excitation is desired; the driving AC voltage is applied to the ring electrode. The ions are first pulled up and down axially while being pushed in radially. The ions are then pulled out radially and pushed in axially (from the top and bottom). In this way the ions move in a complex motion that generally involves the cloud of ions being long and narrow and then short and wide, back and forth, oscillating between the two states. Since the mid-1980s most 3D traps (Paul traps) have used ~1 mTorr of helium. The use of damping gas and the mass-selective instability mode developed by Stafford et al. led to the first commercial 3D ion traps.

The quadrupole ion trap has two main configurations: the three-dimensional form described above and the linear form made of 4 parallel electrodes. A simplified rectilinear configuration is also used. The advantage of the linear design is its greater storage capacity (in particular of Doppler-cooled ions) and its simplicity, but this leaves a particular constraint on its modeling. The Paul trap is designed to create a saddle-shaped field to trap a charged ion, but with a quadrupole, this saddle-shaped electric field cannot be rotated about an ion in the centre. It can only 'flap' the field up and down. For this reason, the motions of a single ion in the trap are described by Mathieu equations, which can only be solved numerically by computer simulations.

The intuitive explanation and lowest order approximation is the same as strong focusing in accelerator physics. Since the field affects the acceleration, the position lags behind (to lowest order by half a period). So the particles are at defocused positions when the field is focusing and vice versa. Being farther from center, they experience a stronger field when the field is focusing than when it is defocusing.

Equations of motion
Ions in a quadrupole field experience restoring forces that drive them back toward the center of the trap. The motion of the ions in the field is described by solutions to the Mathieu equation. When written for ion motion in a trap, the equation is

where $$u$$ represents the x, y and z coordinates, $$\xi$$ is a dimensionless variable given by $$\xi = \Omega t / 2 $$, and $$a_u\,$$ and $$q_u$$ are dimensionless trapping parameters. The parameter $$\Omega$$ is the radial frequency of the potential applied to the ring electrode. By using the chain rule, it can be shown that

Substituting $E$ into the Mathieu $$ yields

Multiplying by m and rearranging terms shows us that

By Newton's laws of motion, the above equation represents the force on the ion. This equation can be exactly solved using the Floquet theorem or the standard techniques of multiple scale analysis. The particle dynamics and time averaged density of charged particles in a Paul trap can also be obtained by the concept of ponderomotive force.

The forces in each dimension are not coupled, thus the force acting on an ion in, for example, the x dimension is

Here, $$\phi$$ is the quadrupolar potential, given by

where $$\phi _0$$ is the applied electric potential and $$\lambda $$, $$\sigma$$, and $$\gamma$$ are weighting factors, and $$r_0$$ is a size parameter constant. In order to satisfy Laplace's equation, $$\nabla^2\phi_0 = 0$$, it can be shown that

 * $$ \lambda + \sigma + \gamma = 0 \, . $$

For an ion trap, $$ \lambda = \sigma = 1 $$ and $$ \gamma = -2 $$ and for a quadrupole mass filter, $$ \lambda = -\sigma = 1 $$ and $$ \gamma = 0 $$.

Transforming Equation 6 into a cylindrical coordinate system with $$x = r \cos\theta$$, $$y = r \sin\theta$$, and $$z = z $$ and applying the Pythagorean trigonometric identity $$\sin^2 \theta + \cos^2 \theta = 1 $$ gives

The applied electric potential is a combination of RF and DC given by

where $$\Omega = 2\pi \nu$$ and $$\nu$$ is the applied frequency in hertz.

Substituting $$ into $$ with $$\lambda = 1$$ gives

Substituting Equation 9 into Equation 5 leads to

Comparing terms on the right hand side of Equation 1 and Equation 10 leads to

and

Further $$q_x = q_y\,$$,

and

The trapping of ions can be understood in terms of stability regions in $$q_u$$ and $$a_u$$ space. The boundaries of the shaded regions in the figure are the boundaries of stability in the two directions (also known as boundaries of bands). The domain of overlap of the two regions is the trapping domain. For calculation of these boundaries and similar diagrams as above see Müller-Kirsten.

Linear ion trap

The linear ion trap uses a set of quadrupole rods to confine ions radially and a static electrical potential on-end electrodes to confine the ions axially. The linear form of the trap can be used as a selective mass filter, or as an actual trap by creating a potential well for the ions along the axis of the electrodes. Advantages of the linear trap design are increased ion storage capacity, faster scan times, and simplicity of construction (although quadrupole rod alignment is critical, adding a quality control constraint to their production. This constraint is additionally present in the machining requirements of the 3D trap).

Cylindrical ion trap
The cylindrical ion trap (CIT) emerged as a derivative of the quadrupole ion trap with simpler geometric structure in which the electrodes are arranged in a cylindrical shape rather than the traditional hyperbolic or linear configuration.

The cylindrical ion trap consists of a central cylindrical electrode (ring electrode) and two end-cap electrodes. By applying a combination of static (DC) and oscillating (RF) voltages to these electrodes, a three-dimensional quadrupole field is generated. The ions are trapped in the center of this field due to the restoring forces created by the electric fields, which confine the ions along the axis and radial directions.

Ion traps with a cylindrical rather than a hyperbolic ring electrode   have been developed and microfabricated in arrays to develop miniature mass spectrometers for chemical detection in medical diagnosis and other fields. However, the reduction in ion storage volumes remains a problem in small ion traps.

Planar ion trap
Quadrupole traps can also be "unfolded" to create the same effect using a set of planar electrodes. This trap geometry can be made using standard micro-fabrication techniques, including the top metal layer in a standard CMOS microelectronics process, and is a key technology for scaling trapped ion quantum computers to useful numbers of qubits.

Combined radio frequency trap
A combined radio frequency trap is a combination of a Paul ion trap and a Penning trap. One of the main bottlenecks of a quadrupole ion trap is that it can confine only single-charged species or multiple species with similar masses. But in certain applications like antihydrogen production it is important to confine two species of charged particles of widely varying masses. To achieve this objective, a uniform magnetic field is added in the axial direction of the quadrupole ion trap.

Digital ion trap
The digital ion trap (DIT) is a quadrupole ion trap (linear or 3D) that differs from conventional traps by the driving waveform. A DIT is driven by digital signals, typically rectangular waveforms that are generated by switching rapidly between discrete voltage levels. Major advantages of the DIT are its versatility and virtually unlimited mass range. The digital ion trap has been developed mainly as a mass analyzer.

title: Quadrupole ion trap


text:
Talk:Henry M. Morris

Neutrality of Article
This article is in blatant violation of the Wikipedia neutrality standard. it lack proper citations, balance and information on both the author, his work, and his career. Mohaveobserver (talk) 15:13, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

This article on Henry M. Morris doesn't seem to fit Wikipedia's neutrality standards. Regarding a controversial subject, both points of view -- both critics and advocates -- should be presented, not leaving the reader feeling one way or another. Instead, this whole article is only presenting criticisms of Morris from "mainstream" scientists while not presenting commendations from fellow creationist scientists/intelligent design scientists. I'm not sure how to tag this article as disputed, maybe somebody else can do that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shaynewhite (talk • contribs) 23:36, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree..the Criticism is longer than the actual biography.. The people who edit and write wikis are extremely anti-creationists from what i have seen. This is really nothing new wiki is extremely bias when it addresses this group, and actually seems to advocate anti-Religious sentiments from the topics i read. It placed all religious beginnings in the "mythology" area. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.179.172.189 (talk) 10:31, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

While something might be undertaken to restructure the article, I disagree with above comments on neutrality, and would like to invite people to read the article on Neutral point of view Gralgrathor (talk) 22:05, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

The article makes claims like: "From the biblical point of view, this is speculative." Even though such statements are true, they go way beyond just stating what the man has said. The article should just give the facts about his claims, not attempt to evaluate them. Ruben, 15 July 2009

I agree this article is nowhere near NPOV. In discussing Dr. Wheeler's criticism of Morris, the article states "Wheeler cited Morris misunderstanding of science, appeals to religious prejudice, misrepresentation of scientific knowledge, omission of opposing science, double standards in evidence,..." Cited. Not, alleged, or contended, but cited. As if Wheeler's criticisms ought to be assumed true! This sentence also relegates religious views to the status of prejudices.

If this were the only NPOV violation in the article, I'd just fix it. But since the majority of the article is devoted to long-winded criticisms, and the overall tone is that of a hit-job, a more general revamping seems called for. I'm no creationist, but I do think Wikipedia ought to provide information, not opinions.0nullbinary0 (talk) 16:52, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

When I add unbiased content that are direct quotes from Henry Morris they get deleted. I guess His view points are not allowed in the article but criticism is allowed. This is not an encyclopedic page but just an editorial expressing peoples opinions.Doc1st (talk) 00:15, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry if you have misunderstood what I have said. The quotes are fine, the unbiased part of your edits was your personal comments.  I hope that we can work together to make this article come from a neutral, unbiased point of view. P Carn (talk) 00:31, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

So I took your advise and just added the quote without my personal comments. Sadly that was removed too.Doc1st (talk) 00:58, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

 * I'm restoring the edit by Doc1st. The article should explain Morris' views, whether we like them or not, not just explain criticisms of his views. Also, the removal of his contributions should have been addressed on the talk page, not just summarily done.0nullbinary0 (talk) 18:54, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

This article on Henry Morris is nothing but a slander-sheet for those who dislike Morris' views. To call the article an encyclopedic entry is a joke. A more correct term for wikipedia, based on this example, would be Darwin-Pedia, or perhaps Dawkins-Pedia. I call upon the wiki-gods to intervene and restore some sanity to this sorry page. Psltaupo (talk) 23:38, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Are there any particular issues you have with this page? Be specific.  Which passages do you think are problematic? Phiwum (talk) 00:15, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Specifically "Morris was the primary source for much of the argumentation used by young Earth creationists when rejecting primary ideas in mainstream science, from the expanding universe to plate tectonics to biological evolution to genetics". How is this under the title of achievements? Maybe this sentence is why this article is criticized by people who are not creationists. Did Henry Morris teach against plate tectonics and genetics? Because I understand that to be a false statement. Thank you for considering revising or deleting this sentence. Jkindness (talk) 02:24, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Spreading disinformation is indeed not an "achievement". I deleted the subtitles "Achievements" and "Criticism" in accordance with WP:CSECTION.
 * Of course Morris opposed plate tectonics and genetics. They contradicted his primitive anti-science worldview, just as most of biology, astronomy, and geology did. I dont think "teach against" are the right word. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:26, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Response to Phiwum. The exclusively hostile nature of all Opinion Section quotes, by other authors, is not representative of the literature. additions of non-hostile quotes by eminent writers are summarily deleted. Quoted hostile opinions by other authors are often ad hominem (...hopelessly confused)(...silly) and so on.Psltaupo (talk) 00:44, 30 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Psltaupo (talk • contribs) 00:34, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

 * I reverted Psltaupo's edit. As far as I know, Michael Ruse has not commented upon Morris, so any addition of his opinion is a violation of our original research policy. Auntie E. (talk) 02:16, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

The edit Auntie E reverted (above) contained a referenced comment by Michael Ruse, which appeared in an american publication, cited in the references section. Why are referenced items summarily deleted like this, and then their existance denied?Psltaupo (talk) 00:50, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

 * Read my comment above. Henry Morris is the subject of this article, not Michael Ruse, nor the topic "Evolution as a religion." Therefore the comment is not relevant to this page and represents a synthesis to support Morris' cosmology. In other words, it doesn't matter if it's sourced, unless it specifically mentions Morris, it is not suitable for this article. The existence of your edit was NOT denied, as I commented upon it above. Auntie E. (talk) 01:09, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Science and Bible Quote

 * "When science and the Bible differ, science has obviously misinterpreted its data."

This sounds like the sort of thing Morris might say, but does anyone have a reference for it? Google just gives a bunch of other unreferenced uses and doesn't seem to show it on the ICR page. TheIncredibleEdibleOompaLoompa 21:17, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

penultimate paragraph

 * I have deleted the parenthetical information in the second to the last paragraph because the information is misleading. Creationist scientists neither wholly accept all operational science, nor wholly reject origins science.  Creationism merely states that operational or empirical science is based on repeatable tests and empirically verifiable data.  This means that like evolutionist scientists, creationist scientists predicate their assesment of empirical science on whether or not the researcher properly used the scientific method.  Origins science, on the other hand, cannot be empirically verified, but is instead based on unprovable assumptions and axiomatic logic.  Therefore, to determine whether or not a given origin theory is likely correct, one need only to analyze the data (in this case all scientific measurements of the planet, its geology, morphology, biology, etc.) and interpret them based on one's chosen assumptions (evolution, uniformitarianism and an old universe; creation, catastrophism and a young universe).  The question then becomes, which interpretation makes the most sense of the data?
 * I am also not particularly thrilled with the last paragraph, as I believe it strays in to POV territory, but I'm not sure how to fix it yet. Yeshuamyking7 November 25, 2005

"No science credentials"
The assertion that Henry Morris has no science credentials is simply false. (by 64.*)

 * 64, I didn't delete anything, I put back a phrase you took out, so accusing me of deletion is a bit odd. Next, I'd be highly interested in hearing what science credentials Morris has. Could you be more specific? JoshuaZ 22:18, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Why should I waste my time listing Morris' vast scientific credentials? It is the person who made the outlandish claim that Morris has none that should be made to back up his/her statement. (by 64.*)

Um, could you help me out here and just list one for me? Thanks. JoshuaZ 22:35, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

 * He was a hydraulic engineer. Although that makes him a "scientist", it hardly gives him qualifications in theology, geology or evolutionary biology. — Dunc|☺ 22:41, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

 * Dunc, Engineering is not science. JoshuaZ 22:46, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

 * Depends on your definition of science. In the sense that engineering is applied physics, it science, albeit not research science, based upon the methodological naturalism that the Devil isn't going to come along and knock down your acqueduct for fun.  We could also argue whether maths is science or even whether the social sciences are science too if you like.  Anywy, list his credentials; people can decide for themselves whether they're relevant. — Dunc|☺ 13:44, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

 * I'm not going to start a debate here, but whether or not Morris had credentials wouldn't make a difference to Guettarda ] evolutionists. Scorpionman 13:04, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Of course it would. Believers in evolution just wish that people who disagree with the theory would admit to generally lacking credentials. If you don't have any qualifications in the field it's important to recognize that. He's no more qualified to discuss geology then he is to do brain surgery. If he has credentials, list them and we'll recant. 155.225.160.108 23:07, 13 April 2006 (UTC)Keio

Surely then anyone who is not qualified in theology has no right to assert whether or not God exists?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.97.173.184 (talk) 21:49, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Morris' credentials are listed below.

 * Dr. Henry Madison Morris

B.S. Rice Institute  1939 M.S. Univ of Minnesota 1948 Ph.D. Univ of Minnesota 1950 - Civil Engineering Honorary LLD Bob Jones University 1966 Honorary D.Litt. Liberty University 1989

Member State Hwy. Dept., Texas, 1938-1939 Jr Engr to Asst Engr, Int. Boundary Comm. 1939-1949 Instr, Civil Engineering, Rice Inst. 1942-1946 Instr to Asst. Prof. & Proj. Supv., St. Anthony Falls Hydraulic Lab, Univ of Minnesota, 1946-1951 Prof of Civil Engr & head of dept, Southwestern La Inst 1951-1956 Prof Applied Science, Univ of Southern Illinois, 1957 Prof of Civil Engr & head of dept, Va Polytech. Inst. & State Univ., 1957-1970 V.P. Academic Affairs, Christian Heritage College, 1970-1978 Pres., Christian Heritage College 1970-1980 Pres., Inst. for Creation Research, 1980-present

Fellow, AAAS Fellow, Am. Soc. Civil Engineers member AGU (American Geophysical Union)82.38.77.65 (talk) 14:53, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

 * So he has no scientific credentials relevant to what he discussed and was a Civil Engineer? So he isn't qualified.  And for the above about theology...Well, theology isn't a scientific realm of study with objectively quantifiable terms and study.  It's basically complete bullshit.  Look at Thomas Aquinas's five proofs for example.  Perfectly respected in theology, yet they remain some of the most laughably idiotic bullshit in all philosophy.  155.225.122.253 (talk) 06:54, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Morris' death - past tense
Since he died, I have modified the article appropriately. Can someone make sure I caught all the tense issues? Thanks. JoshuaZ 06:55, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

 * How did you find that he died? --Juicy Juicy 00:37, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

 * See http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2006/0225morris.asp among other places. JoshuaZ 01:38, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Parallel adjectives: creationary/evolutionary
The English adjective "creationary" derives from and refers back to the noun "creation", just as the morphologically parallel adjective "evolutionary" derives from and refers back to the noun "evolution". For all fair-minded individuals, it is no more "controversial", "ugly", "unnecessary", or "verboten" to use the adjective "creationary" than it is to use the parallel adjective "evolutionary". If evolutionary editors of Wikipedia (who are advocates of evolution) insist on forbidding creationary editors of Wikipedia (who are advocates of creation) from using the adjective "creationary", then, to be consistent, they ought also to forbid themselves the use of the parallel adjective "evolutionary" and insist that it be deleted from all Wikipedia articles. What's good for the evolutionary goose is good for the creationary gander. And what's good for the creationary goose is also good for the evolutionary gander.

creation/evolution (nouns) creational/evolutional (adjectives) creationary/evolutionary (adjectives) creationism/evolutionism (nouns) creationist/evolutionist (nouns) creationistic/evolutionistic (adjectives) Hans-Friedrich Tamke 03:26, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

 * Absolutley not. What is linguistically perfect is not always how people write. Phrases such as "Creation Science" are common and reasonably form compound noun phrases which we should use. The term "creationary science" returns some 400 or so google hits as opposed to 1.5 million with "creation science." heck the word "creationary" returns less than 20,000 hits.  And you won't find many uses of "evolutionary" anyways which is also an ugly and uncommon word. JoshuaZ 03:33, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

 * I agree with JoshuaZ. In some instances (such as "evolution vs creationism") the grammatical imbalance is problematic, in this case the language reflects the terminology both sides use most often.  "Creation science" has evolved into something more specific (and specifically associated with Morris) than "creationary science" (which presumably would encompass 19th-century creation-oriented science, etc.).  As a side note, "evolutionary" may be ugly, but I wouldn't say it's uncommon, particularly when paired with "biology," "biologist," or "theory."--ragesoss 04:39, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

 * Ok, yes, more common than "creationary" certainly and actually has standard uses. JoshuaZ 04:42, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Google search results:

"evolutionary" = about 107,000,000 -- "creationary" = about 17,300 "evolutionary science" = about 173,000 -- "creationary science" = about 463 "evolutionary sciences" = about 20,700 -- "creationary sciences" = about 4 "evolutionary scientist" = about 17,300 -- "creationary scientist" = about 200 "evolutionary scientists" = about 68,600 -- "creationary scientists" = about 282 "evolutionary biology" = about 17,000,000 -- "creationary biology" = about 67 "evolutionary biologist" = about 373,000 -- "creationary biologist" = about 25 "evolutionary biologists" = about 403,000 -- "creationary biologists" = about 18 "evolutionary evidence" = about 20,400 -- "creationary evidence" = about 71 "evolutionary evidences" = about 333 -- "creationary evidences" = 2 "evolutionary theory" = about 4,560,000 -- "creationary theory" = about 202 "evolutionary theories" = about 284,000 -- "creationary theories" = about 39 "evolutionary theorist" = about 29,400 -- "creationary theorist" = about 34 "evolutionary theorists" = about 52,800 -- "creationary theorists" = about 14 "evolutionary theorizing" = about 22,200 -- "creationary theorizing" = 2 "evolutionary theorising" = about 369 -- "creationary theorising" = 1 "evolutionary theoretician" = about 279 -- "creationary theoretician" = 0 "evolutionary theoreticians" = about 74 -- "creationary theoreticians" = 0 "evolutionary thought" = about 182,000 -- "creationary thought" = about 39 "evolutionary thoughts" = about 502 -- "creationary thoughts" = about 35 "evolutionary thinker" = about 609 -- "creationary thinker" = about 5 "evolutionary thinkers" = about 9,880 -- "creationary thinkers" = about 5 "evolutionary thinking" = about 102,000 -- "creationary thinking" = about 72 "evolutionary agenda" = about 588 -- "creationary agenda" = about 6 "evolutionary agendas" = about 175 -- "creationary agenda" = about 4 "evolutionary propaganda" = about 612 -- "creationary propaganda" = about 6 "evolutionary propagandist" = about 138 -- "creationary propagandist" = about 3 "evolutionary propagandists" = about 279 -- "creationary propagandists" = about 4 "evolutionary perspective" = about 760,000 -- "creationary perspective = about 307 "evolutionary perspectives" = about 139,000 -- "creationary perspectives = about 4 "evolutionary philosophy" = about 37,700 -- "creationary philosophy" = about 23 "evolutionary philosophies" = about 547 -- "creationary philosophies" = about 5 "evolutionary philosopher" = about 606 -- "creationary philosopher" = about 4 "evolutionary philosophers" = about 219 -- "creationary philosophers" = about 4 "evolutionary religion" = about 619 -- "creationary religion" = about 3 "evolutionary religions" = about 619 -- "creationary religions" = about 4 "evolutionary religionist" = about 420 -- "creationary religionist" = 0 "evolutionary religionists" = about about 1,540 -- "creationary religionists" = 0 "evolutionary framework" = about 110,000 -- "creationary framework" = about 22 "evolutionary frameworks" = about 389 -- "creationary frameworks" = about 4 "evolutionary view" = about 111,000 -- "creationary view" = about 159 "evolutionary views" = about 21,500 -- "creationary views" = about 24 "evolutionary viewpoint" = about 25,700 -- "creationary viewpoint" = about 58 "evolutionary viewpoints" = about 302 -- "creationary viewpoint" = about 10 "evolutionary point of view" = about 98,000 -- "creationary point of view" = about 27 "evolutionary points of view" = about 290 -- "creationary points of view" = about 3 "evolutionary genetics" = about 607,000 -- "creationary genetics" = about 17 "evolutionary geneticist" = about 17,900 -- "creationary geneticist" = about 6 "evolutionary geneticists" = about 12,100 -- "creationary geneticists" = about 5 "evolutionary concept" = about 45,800 -- "creationary concept" = about 21 "evolutionary concepts" = about 85,700 -- "creationary concepts" = about 17

The adjective evolutionary is used very frequently by both those people who favor and those who disfavor evolution. Those evolutionary and creationary writers and editors who choose to use the parallel adjective creationary on Wikipedia webpages ought to be free to do so. Hans-Friedrich Tamke 08:29, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

 * They're not parallel because you're trying to put forward both a false dichotomy and that somehow science (which you call "evolutionary science") and creationist pseudoscience (which you call "creationary science") are somehow equally with merit (within the framework of philosophy of science). You have a rather silly essay on the subject at http://www.geocities.com/capecanaveral/lab/5985/creation.html — Dunc|☺ 09:49, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

"Morris believed that science cannot be used to study God's creative act. Instead, he believed that any evidence of past events must be interpreted through a non-scientific framework. **In his view this limitation applied equally to both evolutionary and creationary positions when attempting to answer the question of ultimate origins.**" (I added the **last sentence** which was later reverted.)

I have selected a quotation from page 233 of "The Creator in the Courtroom" (1982), a book written by philosopher/theologian Norman Geisler that may interest you and stimulate some thought on the difference between origin science and operation science. (I have changed Geisler's wording a bit by adding the parallel adjectives creationary and evolutionary where he used "creationist's" and "evolutionist's". I have also used the words "creation" and "evolution" (competing facts or putative facts) throughout, instead of "creationism" and "evolutionism" (competing ideologies). This is the modified Norman Geisler quote.

- Now in this broad speculative sense of the word "science," a creationary view is just as scientific as an evolutionary view. Unfortunately, what happened in Arkansas was the application of a double-standard. Evolution as a general theory was considered science on a broad definition of "science," and creation was considered unscientific on a narrow definition of science. If the courts are ever to recognize the scientific character of creation, then this kind of "double-dealing" must be avoided, for creation is no less scientific than is evolution. To be fair the courts must either rule both theories in or both out of the science classroom. - (from page 233, "The Creator in the Courtroom", by Norman Geisler.)

Henry M. Morris would have essentially agreed with Norman Geisler's view. Much evolutionary theory is part of origin science, not operation science. This same limitation also applies to creationary theory. Stephen Jay Gould of Harvard once claimed: "The fact of evolution is as well established as anything in science (as secure as the revolution of the earth about the sun), though absolute certainty has no place in our lexicon." Stephen Jay Gould's "fact of evolution" claim was an overstatement. The "fact of evolution" or the "putative fact of evolution" is a part of origin science. "The revolution of the earth about the sun" is a part of operation science. These two "facts" are not in the same domain.  Hans-Friedrich Tamke 01:45, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

 * Ok, thanks for the standard creationist apologetics philosophical speculation. This has what to do with how the article stands? Please phrase you answer in terms of wiki guidelines like WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:N, WP:OR etc. JoshuaZ 01:49, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Father of "creation science"
fyi, an appropriate Google search;

http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&q=%22father+of+creation+science%22+AND+%28%22Henry+Morris%22+OR+%22Henry+M.+Morris%22%29&btnG=Search&meta= yields a number of references to the "father of 'creation science'". — Dunc|☺ 19:09, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Say, I read somewhere that Henry Morris was heavily influenced by Dr. Irwin Moon in the 1940s, and Dr. Moon also had a 'Sermons from Science' series, wouldn't that make Dr. Moon the 'father of creation science'? Ans what about Sir Isaac Newton? Invmog (talk) 04:39, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Beliefs section edits
I made some changes to the "Beliefs" section in an attempt to make it more neutral and clarify Morris' view of operational and origins science. Thanks JoshuaZ for correcting me about Elliot Sober and generally wikifying my edit. I'm pretty new to Wikipedia so I appreciate any help and advice you all may have. Truth Seeker2 22:27, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Critics
I noticed that this article makes no mention of the answers to these criticisms and i've added a link for those who want to take an objective look at the situation. This is especially the case for the racism article as it's merely nonsense and lies. If any of you have a problem with this or I'm going against the wikipedia rules then please let me know. --Macguysoft 06:06, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Morris: Evolution is a Satanic Plot?
Lenny Flank, who runs a website bashing Darwin-bashers, cited Morris as claiming that evolution was created by Satan -- see http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2437/devil.htm for details.

This might be an interesting comment to add to this article, but though Flank seems to do his homework, I wouldn't think for a second of describing him as an unbiased source. He's one of these types who honestly thinks the USA is heading for a religious fundamentalist dictatorship. (I'm certain there's plenty of religious fundamentalists that *want* to set up a dictatorship, but I think that's well beyond their means.)

Does anyone who is more familiar with the writings of Morris know if Flank's comments on him are accurate? MrG 4.225.214.223 16:36, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

 * Yes, the claims are correct. I've listened to Morris make claims about evolution being a New World Order plot, etc. Morris is the original source of creationist-conspiracy claims of the likes of Kent Hovind. Morris outlines it in his book The Long War Against God: The History and Impact of the Creation/Evolution. I think the article should talk about it. We66er (talk) 05:04, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Removed Link to ICR Rebuttals
I removed this link (Rebuttals to the claims of ICR) as it more pertains to the Institute for Creation Research rather than Henry M. Morris. There is an Answers in Creation link there already. 10outof10die (talk) 20:08, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Evolutionist
Does this mean "biologist"? Maybe the article should use the word "biologist", just to be clear that this is who we are talking about. 76.109.150.183 (talk) 00:44, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

 * Fixed. We66er (talk) 21:14, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Claims and Criticisms
The "Claims and Criticism" section is really all about the criticisms. They should be scaled back and integrated into other sections of the article. The article should be aimed at giving someone a general overview of Morris and his significance, not a debunking. It's sufficient to say that more-or-less no scientist in any relevant field takes Morris's scientific claims seriously and leave it at that (with a citation or twelve). SlubGlub (talk) 02:59, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

 * Wikipedia doesn't remove things on that basis. Importantly, the issue here is WP:NPOV- which means presenting pseudoscience according to WP:UNDUE. Also, besides an introduction to basic science on evolution, that section reflects specific criticism os specific books, which is completely needed in an encyclo. article.

 * There are 7 paragraphs in that section which are as follows: 1) Deals with an overview of his work and general remarks, 2) is about his book Scientific Creationism (1974 and 1984), 3) his book Evolution & the Modern Christian (1967), 4) his book The Genesis Flood, 5) his book The Long War Against God (1989), 6) his remarks on racism and evolution, and 7) his work/creation of Transnational Association of Christian Colleges and Schools. I think it is structured well. Tgreach (talk) 05:54, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

 * Seven paragraphs of criticism of Morris and not a word on the cultural impact of The Genesis Flood does not conform to WP:NNC. All that needs to be said is that Morris's views on evolution are rejected by nearly every practicing scientist in relevant fields.  Add some citations to such a statement (which can be culled from the current material), and you've pretty much conveyed to any fair-minded reader that his views are not worthy of serious consideration. SlubGlub (talk) 02:14, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

 * So merge or put the The Genesis Flood article up for afd. I agree it needs more context, but descriptionsof works that are in libraries around the world is relevant to the article. The Michael Shermer article has a similiar break down of his books/ideas. The issue isn't whether is ideas are crazy (which they are: ie "evolutionism is satanic"), but what he claims in his books and the reception of scientists. There is no problem discussing particular ideas in his books and criticisms of it. Tgreach (talk) 23:43, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Morris Family
Since this is an article about Henry M. Morris, why not more about who his family is/was? Does he have only one son or two (or more); daughters?

Also, the SDA connection is curious because Genesis 1 depicts God giving homo sapiens a vegan diet, yet there's no evidence that Henry M. Morris or any of his followers realized the implications of God's Original Design as vegan being anything 'for today', although a great many reformers and great Christian leaders WERE vegetarian (Charles Wesley, the hymnwriter, rumors of Martin Luther, et al), and a presence of fundamentalist Baptists in the modern vegetarian (vegan) discussion (Hallelujah Acres, etc., Dr. George Malkmus).

Also, the scholarly question of 'selective Creationism' or 'selective Biblical Creationism' (i.e. being 'creationist' to the extent that one understands or values the implications, but ignoring other implications). —Preceding unsigned comment added by MaynardClark (talk • contribs) 00:56, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I would want to note that Charles Darwin ALSO was a vegetarian, though in America, the humane movement in the Evangelical Churches paralleled the rediscovery of the material world through the sciences, the rise of New England transcendentalism, the food reform movement, the incoming of better translations of the religious scriptures of the other peoples of the world (an intellectual source of New England 'Transcendentalism' and Unitarianism, and the Underground Railroad and the Civil War - and the Evangelical Churches' role in the success of that). —Preceding unsigned comment added by MaynardClark (talk • contribs) 01:04, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

 * "Genesis 1 depicts God giving homo sapiens a vegan diet". Yep, although I'm not sure it's exactly vegan. Not many people know that. Not that it reallt matters. A bit later on, by the way, God gives homo sapiens a meat diet (at the end of the Noah story). Not many people know that, either. MacDonald's, doing the Lord's will. PiCo (talk) 00:56, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Untitled section
The article is so far from a NPOV that its continued existence tells people that Wikipedia approves contempt for Christian perspectives. 76.6.69.190 (talk) 11:11, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, rather than just making vague attacks and broad assumptions for the sake of your own vanity, you could propose some specific changes, additions, or deletions. 174.53.187.179 (talk) 19:27, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

POV problems in this article
Why were my edits to this article reverted? From my perspective, these were common sense edits that improved the quality of this article.

The "Criticism" section violates WP:UNDUE, as it takes up an inappropriately large amount of article space. This article is supposed to be about Henry Morris and his beliefs, not about the criticism of his beliefs. I have no problem with having a criticism section, but having one so large and expansive, I think, is unnecessary - even if it is in the article of a prominent creationist.

Additionally, there is some wording in this article that violate WP:SAY and MOS:OPED. I will soon proceed to fix that wording.

As for the intro section, it appears that many editors, for whatever reason, have an urge to declare Evolution to be an undisputed fact. This article's intro already states that creationism is rejected by the scientific community and the general public. What more do you want? Edits like that are simply a sneaky attempt at affirming their own views and passing judgments on this subject. This should not be done, no matter how widely Evolution is accepted. I have already, with the help of other editors, fixed this on the Answers in Genesis article.

Please be objective, even when editing an article such as this. Thanks. --1990'sguy (talk) 00:46, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

 * Evolution is a "undisputed fact" (at least to the extent that this article says it is. So why is that a problem? Guettarda (talk) 13:10, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

 * As for WP:UNDUE - yes, we shouldn't have a criticism section. Morris' ideas should be discussed in context, not presented and then refuted separately. That's just bad writing. But no, I don't see why random bits of the explanation of them should be removed. In fact, the best secondary and tertiary sources about Morris are the ones that criticise his claims. Guettarda (talk) 13:15, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

 * This article is supposed to be about Morris and his beliefs, not whether those beliefs are correct or not. Evolution may be a "undisputed fact", but that doesn't mean we must mention it here, especially in the intro paragraph. Wikipedia is not the place for passing judgments, no matter how popular or accepted they are. Am I wrong?

 * Also, I have no problem with having criticism of Morris on this article, however I dislike the fact that such a large amount of this article is reserved for criticism. Is there any way we can condense this section? I don't think I have seen a section so expansive on any other article. --1990'sguy (talk) 19:52, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

 * There shouldn't actually be a separate section for criticism. There should be a Reception section -- which would neutrally describe how Morris' thought has been received by the world at large. All of the material currently in the Criticism appears to be well-sourced and relevant and can remain. I have added a header for reception; the achievements and criticism subsections can be merged together. — goethean 21:04, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Image
Can anyone upload an image of Henry Morris to this article? --1990'sguy (talk) 22:12, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

King James Only movement
Should Morris really be listed as being a member of the King James Only movement? It is true that the King James Version was his favorite translation, but I don't think he ever said/thought that no other translation should be used, and he certainly did not think that the KJV was a perfect translation. --1990'sguy (talk) 21:22, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Henry M. Morris. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20080229030534/http://www.roanoke.com/news/nrv/wb/wb/xp-43221 to http://www.roanoke.com/news/nrv/wb/wb/xp-43221
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080910084526/https://store.creationontheweb.com/common/productpdfs/10-3-017.pdf to https://store.creationontheweb.com/common/productpdfs/10-3-017.pdf

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:51, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Henry M. Morris. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150905083619/http://store.icr.org/Free-Printable-Tracts/products/25/ to http://store.icr.org/Free-Printable-Tracts/products/25/

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:43, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Henry M. Morris. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050305163434/http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/morrish.html to http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/morrish.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:25, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Henry M. Morris


text: User talk:67.87.15.81

title: User talk:67.87.15.81