text:
List of federally recognized tribes in the contiguous United States

This is a list of federally recognized tribes in the contiguous United States. There are also federally recognized Alaska Native tribes. , 574 Indian tribes were legally recognized by the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) of the United States. Of these, 228 are located in Alaska and 109 are located in California. 346 of the 574 federally recognized tribes are located in the contiguous United States.

Description
Federally recognized tribes are those Native American tribes recognized by the United States Bureau of Indian Affairs as holding a government-to-government relationship with the US federal government. For Alaska Native tribes, see list of Alaska Native tribal entities.

In the United States, the Native American tribe is a fundamental unit of sovereign tribal government. As the Department of the Interior explains, "federally recognized tribes are recognized as possessing certain inherent rights of self-government (i.e., tribal sovereignty)...." The constitution grants to the U.S. Congress the right to interact with tribes. More specifically, the Supreme Court of the United States in United States v. Sandoval, 231 U.S. 28 (1913), warned, "it is not... that Congress may bring a community or body of people within range of this power by arbitrarily calling them an Indian tribe, but only that in respect of distinctly Indian communities the questions whether, to what extent, and for what time they shall be recognized and dealt with as dependent tribes" (at 46). Federal tribal recognition grants to tribes the right to certain benefits, and is largely administered by the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA).

While trying to determine which groups were eligible for federal recognition in the 1970s, government officials became aware of the need for consistent procedures. To illustrate, several federally unrecognized tribes encountered obstacles in bringing land claims; United States v. Washington (1974) was a court case that affirmed the fishing treaty rights of Washington tribes; and other tribes demanded that the U.S. government recognize aboriginal titles. All the above culminated in the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act of 1975, which legitimized tribal entities by partially restoring Native American self-determination.

Federal acknowledgment
Following the decisions made by the Indian Claims Commission in the 1950s, the BIA in 1978 published final rules with procedures that groups had to meet to secure federal tribal acknowledgment. There are seven criteria. Four have proven troublesome for most groups to prove: long-standing historical community, outside identification as Indians, political authority, and descent from a historical tribe. Tribes seeking recognition must submit detailed petitions to the BIA's Office of Federal Acknowledgment.

To be formally recognized as an Indian tribe, the US Congress can legislate recognition or a tribe can meet the seven criteria outlined by the Office of Federal Acknowledgment. These seven criteria are summarized as:
 * 1) 83.7(a): "Indian entity identification: The petitioner demonstrates that it has been identified as an American Indian entity on a substantially continuous basis since 1900."
 * 2) 83.7(b): "Community: The petitioner demonstrates that it comprises a distinct community and existed as a community from 1900 until the present."
 * 3) 83.7(c): "Political influence or authority: The petitioner demonstrates that it has maintained political influence or authority over its members as an autonomous entity from 1900 until the present."
 * 4) 83.7(d): "Governing document: The petitioner provides a copy of the group's present governing document including its membership criteria. In the absence of a written document, the petitioner must provide a statement describing in full its membership criteria and current governing procedures."
 * 5) 83.7(e): "Descent: The petitioner demonstrates that its membership consists of individuals who descend from a historical Indian tribe or from historical Indian tribes which combined and functioned as a single autonomous political entity."
 * 6) 83.7(f): "Unique membership: The petitioner demonstrates that the membership of the petitioning group is composed principally of persons who are not members of any acknowledged North American Indian tribe."
 * 7) 83.7(g): "Congressional termination: The Department demonstrates that neither the petitioner nor its members are the subject of congressional legislation that has expressly terminated or forbidden the Federal relationship."

The federal acknowledgment process can take years, even decades; delays of 12 to 14 years have occurred. The Shinnecock Indian Nation formally petitioned for recognition in 1978 and was recognized 32 years later in 2010. At a Senate Committee on Indian Affairs hearing, witnesses testified that the process was "broken, long, expensive, burdensome, intrusive, unfair, arbitrary and capricious, less than transparent, unpredictable, and subject to undue political influence and manipulation."

Recent additions
The number of tribes increased to 567 in May 2016 with the inclusion of the Pamunkey tribe in Virginia who received their federal recognition in July 2015. The number of tribes increased to 573 with the addition of six tribes in Virginia under the Thomasina E. Jordan Indian Tribes of Virginia Federal Recognition Act of 2017, signed in January 2018 after the annual list had been published. In July 2018 the United States' Federal Register issued an official list of 573 tribes that are Indian Entities Recognized and Eligible To Receive Services From the United States Bureau of Indian Affairs. The Little Shell Tribe of Chippewa Indians of Montana became the 574th tribe to gain federal recognition on December 20, 2019. The website USA.gov, the federal government's official web portal, also maintains an updated list of tribal governments. Ancillary information present in former versions of this list but no longer contained in the current listing has been included here in italic print.

A

 * Absentee-Shawnee Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma
 * Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians of the Agua Caliente Indian Reservation, California
 * Ak-Chin Indian Community (previously listed as Ak Chin Indian Community of the Maricopa (Ak Chin) Indian Reservation, Arizona)
 * Alabama-Coushatta Tribe of Texas (previously listed as Alabama-Coushatta Tribes of Texas)
 * Alabama-Quassarte Tribal Town, Oklahoma
 * Alturas Indian Rancheria, California
 * Apache Tribe of Oklahoma
 * Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes of the Fort Peck Indian Reservation, Montana
 * Augustine Band of Cahuilla Indians, California (previously listed as Augustine Band of Cahuilla Mission Indians of the Augustine Reservation)

B

 * Bad River Band of the Lake Superior Tribe of Chippewa Indians of the Bad River Reservation, Wisconsin
 * Bay Mills Indian Community, Michigan
 * Bear River Band of the Rohnerville Rancheria, California
 * Berry Creek Rancheria of Maidu Indians of California
 * Big Lagoon Rancheria, California
 * Big Pine Paiute Tribe of the Owens Valley (previously listed as Big Pine Band of Owens Valley Paiute Shoshone Indians of the Big Pine Reservation, California)
 * Big Sandy Rancheria of Western Mono Indians of California (previously listed as Big Sandy Rancheria of Mono Indians of California)
 * Big Valley Band of Pomo Indians of the Big Valley Rancheria, California
 * Bishop Paiute Tribe (previously listed as Paiute-Shoshone Indians of the Bishop Community of the Bishop Colony, California)
 * Blackfeet Tribe of the Blackfeet Indian Reservation of Montana
 * Blue Lake Rancheria, California
 * Bridgeport Indian Colony (previously listed as Bridgeport Paiute Indian Colony of California)
 * Buena Vista Rancheria of Me-Wuk Indians of California
 * Burns Paiute Tribe (previously listed as Burns Paiute Tribe of the Burns Paiute Indian Colony of Oregon)

C

 * Cabazon Band of Cahuilla Indians (previously listed as Cabazon Band of Mission Indians, California; Cabazon Band of Cahuilla Mission Indians of the Cabazon Reservation)
 * Cachil DeHe Band of Wintun Indians of the Colusa Indian Community of the Colusa Rancheria, California
 * Caddo Nation of Oklahoma (previously listed as Caddo Indian Tribe of Oklahoma)
 * Cahto Tribe of the Laytonville Rancheria (previously listed as Cahto Indian Tribe of the Laytonville Rancheria, California)
 * Cahuilla Band of Indians (previously listed as Cahuilla Band of Mission Indians of the Cahuilla Reservation, California)
 * California Valley Miwok Tribe, California (previously listed as Sheep Ranch Rancheria of Me-Wuk Indians of California)
 * Campo Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of the Campo Indian Reservation, California
 * Capitan Grande Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of California:
 * Barona Group of Capitan Grande Band of Mission Indians of the Barona Reservation, California
 * Viejas (Baron Long) Group of Capitan Grande Band of Mission Indians of the Viejas Reservation, California
 * Catawba Indian Nation (previously listed as Catawba Tribe of South Carolina)
 * Cayuga Nation (previously listed as Cayuga Nation of New York)
 * Cedarville Rancheria, California
 * Chemehuevi Indian Tribe of the Chemehuevi Reservation, California
 * Cher-Ae Heights Indian Community of the Trinidad Rancheria, California
 * Cherokee Nation
 * Cheyenne and Arapaho Tribes, Oklahoma (previously listed as Cheyenne-Arapaho Tribes of Oklahoma)
 * Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe of the Cheyenne River Reservation, South Dakota
 * Chickahominy Indian Tribe
 * Chickahominy Indian Tribe–Eastern Division
 * Chicken Ranch Rancheria of Me-Wuk Indians of California
 * Chippewa Cree Indians of the Rocky Boy's Reservation, Montana (previously listed as Chippewa-Cree Indians of the Rocky Boy's Reservation, Montana)
 * Chitimacha Tribe of Louisiana
 * Citizen Potawatomi Nation, Oklahoma
 * Cloverdale Rancheria of Pomo Indians of California
 * Cocopah Tribe of Arizona
 * Coeur D'Alene Tribe (previously listed as Coeur D'Alene Tribe of the Coeur D'Alene Reservation, Idaho)
 * Cold Springs Rancheria of Mono Indians of California
 * Colorado River Indian Tribes of the Colorado River Indian Reservation, Arizona and California
 * Comanche Nation, Oklahoma (previously listed as Comanche Indian Tribe)
 * Confederated Salish & Kootenai Tribes of the Flathead Reservation
 * Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation (previously listed as Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Indian Nation of the Yakama Reservation)
 * Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians of Oregon (previously listed as Confederated Tribes of the Siletz Reservation)
 * Confederated Tribes of the Chehalis Reservation
 * Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation
 * Confederated Tribes of the Coos, Lower Umpqua and Siuslaw Indians (previously listed as Confederated Tribes of the Coos, Lower Umpqua and Siuslaw Indians of Oregon)
 * Confederated Tribes of the Goshute Reservation, Nevada and Utah
 * Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde Community of Oregon
 * Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation (previously listed as Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Reservation, Oregon)
 * Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon
 * Coquille Indian Tribe (previously listed as Coquille Tribe of Oregon)
 * Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana
 * Cow Creek Band of Umpqua Tribe of Indians (previously listed as Cow Creek Band of Umpqua Indians of Oregon)
 * Cowlitz Indian Tribe
 * Coyote Valley Band of Pomo Indians of California (previously listed as Coyote Valley Band of Pomo Indians of California)
 * Crow Creek Sioux Tribe of the Crow Creek Reservation, South Dakota
 * Crow Tribe of Montana

D

 * Delaware Nation, Oklahoma (previously listed as Absentee Delaware Tribe of Western Oklahoma; Delaware Tribe of Western Oklahoma)
 * Delaware Tribe of Indians (previously listed as Cherokee Delaware; Eastern Delaware)
 * Dry Creek Rancheria Band of Pomo Indians, California (previously listed as Dry Creek Rancheria of Pomo Indians of California)
 * Duckwater Shoshone Tribe of the Duckwater Reservation, Nevada

E

 * Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians (previously listed as Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians of North Carolina)
 * Eastern Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma
 * Eastern Shoshone Tribe of the Wind River Reservation, Wyoming (previously listed as Shoshone Tribe of the Wind River Reservation, Wyoming)
 * Elem Indian Colony of Pomo Indians of the Sulphur Bank Rancheria, California
 * Elk Valley Rancheria, California
 * Ely Shoshone Tribe of Nevada
 * Enterprise Rancheria of Maidu Indians of California
 * Ewiiaapaayp Band of Kumeyaay Indians, California (previously listed as Cuyapaipe Community of Diegueno Mission Indians of the Cuyapaipe Reservation)

F

 * Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria, California (previously listed as Graton Rancheria; Federated Coast Miwok)
 * Flandreau Santee Sioux Tribe of South Dakota
 * Forest County Potawatomi Community, Wisconsin
 * Fort Belknap Indian Community of the Fort Belknap Reservation of Montana
 * Fort Bidwell Indian Community of the Fort Bidwell Reservation of California
 * Fort Independence Indian Community of Paiute Indians of the Fort Independence Reservation, California
 * Fort McDermitt Paiute and Shoshone Tribes of the Fort McDermitt Indian Reservation, Nevada and Oregon
 * Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation, Arizona (previously listed as Fort McDowell Mohave-Apache Community of the Fort McDowell Indian Reservation)
 * Fort Mojave Indian Tribe of Arizona, California & Nevada
 * Fort Sill Apache Tribe of Oklahoma

G

 * Gila River Indian Community of the Gila River Indian Reservation, Arizona
 * Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians, Michigan
 * Greenville Rancheria (previously listed as Greenville Rancheria of Maidu Indians of California)
 * Grindstone Indian Rancheria of Wintun-Wailaki Indians of California
 * Guidiville Rancheria of California

H

 * Habematolel Pomo of Upper Lake, California (previously listed as Upper Lake Band of Pomo Indians of Upper Lake Rancheria of California)
 * Hannahville Indian Community, Michigan
 * Havasupai Tribe of the Havasupai Reservation, Arizona
 * Ho-Chunk Nation of Wisconsin (previously listed as Wisconsin Winnebago Tribe)
 * Hoh Indian Tribe (previously listed as Hoh Indian Tribe of the Hoh Indian Reservation, Washington)
 * Hoopa Valley Tribe, California
 * Hopi Tribe of Arizona
 * Hopland Band of Pomo Indians, California (previously listed as Hopland Band of Pomo Indians of the Hopland Rancheria, California)
 * Houlton Band of Maliseet Indians (previously listed as Houlton Band of Maliseet Indians of Maine)
 * Hualapai Indian Tribe of the Hualapai Indian Reservation, Arizona

I

 * Iipay Nation of Santa Ysabel, California (previously listed as Santa Ysabel Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of the Santa Ysabel Reservation)
 * Inaja Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of the Inaja and Cosmit Reservation, California
 * Ione Band of Miwok Indians of California
 * Iowa Tribe of Kansas and Nebraska
 * Iowa Tribe of Oklahoma

J

 * Jackson Band of Miwuk Indians (previously listed as Jackson Rancheria of Me-Wuk Indians of California)
 * Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe (previously listed as Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe of Washington)
 * Jamul Indian Village of California
 * Jena Band of Choctaw Indians
 * Jicarilla Apache Nation, New Mexico (previously listed as Jicarilla Apache Tribe of the Jicarilla Apache Indian Reservation)

K

 * Kaibab Band of Paiute Indians of the Kaibab Indian Reservation, Arizona
 * Kalispel Indian Community of the Kalispel Reservation
 * Karuk Tribe (previously listed as Karuk Tribe of California)
 * Kashia Band of Pomo Indians of the Stewarts Point Rancheria, California
 * Kaw Nation, Oklahoma
 * Keweenaw Bay Indian Community, Michigan
 * Kialegee Tribal Town
 * Kickapoo Traditional Tribe of Texas (previously listed as Texas Band of Traditional Kickapoo)
 * Kickapoo Tribe of Indians of the Kickapoo Reservation in Kansas
 * Kickapoo Tribe of Oklahoma
 * Kiowa Indian Tribe of Oklahoma
 * Klamath Tribes
 * Kletsel Dehe Wintun Nation of the Cortina Rancheria (previously listed as Kletsel Dehe Band of Wintun Indians)
 * Koi Nation of Northern California (previously listed as Lower Lake Rancheria, California)
 * Kootenai Tribe of Idaho

L

 * La Jolla Band of Luiseno Indians, California (previously listed as La Jolla Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the La Jolla Reservation, California)
 * La Posta Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of the La Posta Indian Reservation, California
 * Lac Courte Oreilles Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin
 * Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of the Lac du Flambeau Reservation of Wisconsin
 * Lac Vieux Desert Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians, Michigan
 * Las Vegas Tribe of Paiute Indians of the Las Vegas Indian Colony, Nevada
 * Little River Band of Ottawa Indians, Michigan
 * Little Shell Tribe of Chippewa Indians of Montana
 * Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians, Michigan
 * Lone Pine Paiute-Shoshone Tribe (previously listed as Paiute-Shoshone Indians of the Lone Pine Community of the Lone Pine Reservation, California)
 * Los Coyotes Band of Cahuilla and Cupeno Indians, California (previously listed as Los Coyotes Band of Cahuilla & Cupeno Indians of the Los Coyotes Reservation, California; Los Coyotes Band of Cahuilla Mission Indians of the Los Coyotes Reservation)
 * Lovelock Paiute Tribe of the Lovelock Indian Colony, Nevada
 * Lower Brule Sioux Tribe of the Lower Brule Reservation, South Dakota
 * Lower Elwha Tribal Community (previously listed as Lower Elwha Tribal Community of the Lower Elwha Reservation, Washington)
 * Lower Sioux Indian Community in the State of Minnesota
 * Lummi Tribe of the Lummi Reservation
 * Lytton Rancheria of California

M

 * Makah Indian Tribe of the Makah Indian Reservation
 * Manchester Band of Pomo Indians of the Manchester Rancheria, California (previously listed as Manchester Band of Pomo Indians of the Manchester-Point Arena Rancheria, California)
 * Manzanita Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of the Manzanita Reservation, California
 * Mashantucket Pequot Indian Tribe (previously listed as Mashantucket Pequot Tribe of Connecticut)
 * Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe (previously listed as Mashpee Wampanoag Indian Tribal Council, Inc., Massachusetts)
 * Match-e-be-nash-she-wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians of Michigan (previously listed as Gun Lake Indian Tribe; Gun Lake Village Band & Ottawa Colony Band of Grand River Ottawa Indians)
 * Mechoopda Indian Tribe of Chico Rancheria, California
 * Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin
 * Mesa Grande Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of the Mesa Grande Reservation, California
 * Mescalero Apache Tribe of the Mescalero Reservation, New Mexico
 * Miami Tribe of Oklahoma
 * Miccosukee Tribe of Indians
 * Middletown Rancheria of Pomo Indians of California
 * Mi'kmaq Nation (previously listed as Aroostook Band of Micmacs; Aroostook Band of Micmac Indians)
 * Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota Six component reservations:
 * Bois Forte Band (Nett Lake)
 * Fond du Lac Band
 * Grand Portage Band
 * Leech Lake Band
 * Mille Lacs Band
 * White Earth Band
 * Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians (previously listed as Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians, Mississippi)
 * Moapa Band of Paiute Indians of the Moapa River Indian Reservation, Nevada
 * Modoc Nation (previously listed as The Modoc Tribe of Oklahoma)
 * Mohegan Tribe of Indians of Connecticut (previously listed as Mohegan Indian Tribe of Connecticut)
 * Monacan Indian Nation
 * Mooretown Rancheria of Maidu Indians of California
 * Morongo Band of Mission Indians, California (previously listed as Morongo Band of Cahuilla Mission Indians of the Morongo Reservation, California)
 * Muckleshoot Indian Tribe (previously listed as Muckleshoot Indian Tribe of the Muckleshoot Reservation, Washington)

N

 * Nansemond Indian Nation (previously listed as Nansemond Indian Tribe)
 * Narragansett Indian Tribe (previously listed as Narragansett Indian Tribe of Rhode Island)
 * Navajo Nation, Arizona, New Mexico & Utah
 * Nez Perce Tribe (previously listed as Nez Perce Tribe of Idaho)
 * Nisqually Indian Tribe (previously listed as Nisqually Indian Tribe of the Nisqually Reservation, Washington)
 * Nooksack Indian Tribe (previously listed as Nooksack Indian Tribe of Washington)
 * Northern Arapaho Tribe of the Wind River Reservation, Wyoming
 * Northern Cheyenne Tribe of the Northern Cheyenne Indian Reservation, Montana
 * Northfork Rancheria of Mono Indians of California
 * Northwestern Band of the Shoshone Nation (previously listed as Northwestern Band of Shoshoni Nation and Northwestern Band of Shoshoni Nation of Utah (Washakie))
 * Nottawaseppi Huron Band of the Potawatomi, Michigan (previously listed as Huron Potawatomi, Inc.)

O

 * Oglala Sioux Tribe, South Dakota (previously listed as Oglala Sioux Tribe of the Pine Ridge Reservation, South Dakota)
 * Ohkay Owingeh, New Mexico (previously listed as Pueblo of San Juan)
 * Omaha Tribe of Nebraska
 * Oneida Indian Nation (previously listed as Oneida Nation of New York)
 * Oneida Nation (previously listed as Oneida Tribe of Indians of Wisconsin)
 * Onondaga Nation, New York (previously listed as Onondaga Nation of New York)
 * Otoe-Missouria Tribe of Indians, Oklahoma
 * Ottawa Tribe of Oklahoma

P

 * Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah
 * Cedar Band of Paiutes (previously listed as Cedar City Band of Paiutes)
 * Indian Peaks Band of Paiutes
 * Kanosh Band of Paiutes
 * Koosharem Band of Paiutes
 * Shivwits Band of Paiutes
 * Paiute-Shoshone Tribe of the Fallon Reservation and Colony, Nevada
 * Pala Band of Mission Indians (previously listed as Pala Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the Pala Reservation, California)
 * Pamunkey Indian Tribe
 * Pascua Yaqui Tribe of Arizona
 * Paskenta Band of Nomlaki Indians of California
 * Passamaquoddy Tribe (previously listed as Passamaquoddy Tribe of Maine)
 * Pauma Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the Pauma & Yuima Reservation, California
 * Pawnee Nation of Oklahoma
 * Pechanga Band of Indians (previously listed as Pechanga Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the Pechanga Reservation, California)
 * Penobscot Nation (previously listed as Penobscot Tribe of Maine)
 * Peoria Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma
 * Picayune Rancheria of Chukchansi Indians of California
 * Pinoleville Pomo Nation, California (previously listed as Pinoleville Rancheria of Pomo Indians of California)
 * Pit River Tribe, California includes:
 * Big Bend Rancheria
 * Likely Rancheria
 * Lookout Rancheria
 * Montgomery Creek Rancheria
 * Roaring Creek Rancheria
 * XL Ranch
 * Poarch Band of Creek Indians (previously listed as Poarch Band of Creeks, Poarch Band of Creek Indians of Alabama, Creek Nation East of the Mississippi)
 * Pokagon Band of Potawatomi Indians, Michigan and Indiana
 * Ponca Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma
 * Ponca Tribe of Nebraska
 * Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe (previously listed as Port Gamble Band of S'Klallam Indians; Port Gamble Indian Community of the Port Gamble Reservation, Washington)
 * Potter Valley Tribe, California (previously listed as Potter Valley Rancheria of Pomo Indians of California)
 * Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation (previously listed as Prairie Band of Potawatomi Nation, Kansas; Prairie Band of Potawatomi Indians)
 * Prairie Island Indian Community in the State of Minnesota
 * Pueblo of Acoma, New Mexico
 * Pueblo of Cochiti, New Mexico
 * Pueblo of Isleta, New Mexico
 * Pueblo of Jemez, New Mexico
 * Pueblo of Laguna, New Mexico
 * Pueblo of Nambe, New Mexico
 * Pueblo of Picuris, New Mexico
 * Pueblo of Pojoaque, New Mexico
 * Pueblo of San Felipe, New Mexico
 * Pueblo of San Ildefonso, New Mexico
 * Pueblo of Sandia, New Mexico
 * Pueblo of Santa Ana, New Mexico
 * Pueblo of Santa Clara, New Mexico
 * Pueblo of Taos, New Mexico
 * Pueblo of Tesuque, New Mexico
 * Pueblo of Zia, New Mexico
 * Pulikla Tribe of Yurok People (previously listed as Resighini Rancheria, California; Coast Indian Community of Yurok Indians of the Resighini Rancheria)
 * Puyallup Tribe of Indians
 * Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe of the Pyramid Lake Reservation, Nevada

Q

 * Quapaw Nation (previously listed as Quapaw Tribe of Indians; Quapaw Tribe of Indians, Oklahoma)
 * Quartz Valley Indian Community of the Quartz Valley Reservation of California
 * Quechan Tribe of the Fort Yuma Indian Reservation, California & Arizona
 * Quileute Tribe of the Quileute Reservation (previously listed as Quileute Tribe of the Quileute Reservation, Washington)
 * Quinault Indian Nation (previously listed as Quinault Tribe of the Quinault Reservation, Washington)

R

 * Ramona Band of Cahuilla, California (previously listed as Ramona Band or Village of Cahuilla Mission Indians of California)
 * Rappahannock Tribe, Inc.
 * Red Cliff Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin
 * Red Lake Band of Chippewa Indians, Minnesota
 * Redding Rancheria, California
 * Redwood Valley or Little River Band of Pomo Indians of the Redwood Valley Rancheria California (previously listed as Redwood Valley Rancheria of Pomo Indians of California)
 * Reno-Sparks Indian Colony, Nevada
 * Rincon Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of Rincon Reservation, California (previously listed as Rincon Band of Luiseno Indians)
 * Robinson Rancheria (previously listed as Robinson Rancheria Band of Pomo Indians, California, and Robinson Rancheria of Pomo Indians of California)
 * Rosebud Sioux Tribe of the Rosebud Indian Reservation, South Dakota
 * Round Valley Indian Tribes, Round Valley Reservation, California (previously listed as Round Valley Indian Tribes of the Round Valley Reservation, California; Covelo Indian Community)

S

 * Sac & Fox Nation of Missouri in Kansas and Nebraska
 * Sac & Fox Nation, Oklahoma
 * Sac & Fox Tribe of the Mississippi in Iowa
 * Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe of Michigan
 * Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe (previously listed as St. Regis Band of Mohawk Indians of New York)
 * Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community of the Salt River Reservation, Arizona
 * Samish Indian Nation (previously listed as Samish Indian Tribe, Washington)
 * San Carlos Apache Tribe of the San Carlos Reservation, Arizona
 * San Juan Southern Paiute Tribe of Arizona
 * San Pasqual Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of California
 * Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla Indians, California (previously listed as Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla Mission Indians of the Santa Rosa Reservation)
 * Santa Rosa Indian Community of the Santa Rosa Rancheria, California
 * Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Mission Indians of the Santa Ynez Reservation, California
 * Santee Sioux Nation, Nebraska (previously listed as Santee Sioux Tribe of the Santee Reservation of Nebraska)
 * Santo Domingo Pueblo (previously listed as Kewa Pueblo, New Mexico and Pueblo of Santo Domingo)
 * Sauk-Suiattle Indian Tribe (previously listed as Sauk-Suiattle Indian Tribe of Washington)
 * Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians, Michigan (previously listed as Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians of Michigan)
 * Scotts Valley Band of Pomo Indians of California
 * Seminole Tribe of Florida (previously also listing its reservations:)
 * Big Cypress Reservation
 * Brighton Reservation
 * Dania Reservation
 * Hollywood Reservation
 * Tampa Reservation
 * Seneca Nation of Indians (previously listed as Seneca Nation of New York)
 * Seneca-Cayuga Nation (previously listed as Seneca-Cayuga Tribe of Oklahoma)
 * Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community of Minnesota
 * Shawnee Tribe (previously listed as Shawnee Tribe, Oklahoma)
 * Sherwood Valley Rancheria of Pomo Indians of California
 * Shingle Springs Band of Miwok Indians, Shingle Springs Rancheria (Verona Tract), California
 * Shinnecock Indian Nation (previously listed as Shinnecock Indian Nation, New York)
 * Shoalwater Bay Indian Tribe of the Shoalwater Bay Indian Reservation (previously listed as Shoalwater Bay Tribe of the Shoalwater Bay Indian Reservation, Washington)
 * Shoshone-Bannock Tribes of the Fort Hall Reservation (previously listed as Shoshone-Bannock Tribes of the Fort Hall Reservation of Idaho)
 * Shoshone-Paiute Tribes of the Duck Valley Reservation, Nevada
 * Sisseton-Wahpeton Oyate of the Lake Traverse Reservation, South Dakota
 * Skokomish Indian Tribe (previously listed as Skokomish Indian Tribe of the Skokomish Reservation, Washington)
 * Skull Valley Band of Goshute Indians of Utah
 * Snoqualmie Indian Tribe (previously listed as Snoqualmie Tribe, Washington)
 * Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians, California (previously listed as Soboba Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the Soboba Reservation)
 * Sokaogon Chippewa Community, Wisconsin
 * Southern Ute Indian Tribe of the Southern Ute Reservation, Colorado
 * Spirit Lake Tribe, North Dakota
 * Spokane Tribe of the Spokane Reservation
 * Squaxin Island Tribe of the Squaxin Island Reservation (previously listed as Squaxin Island Tribe of the Squaxin Island Reservation, Washington)
 * St. Croix Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin
 * Standing Rock Sioux Tribe of North & South Dakota
 * Stillaguamish Tribe of Indians of Washington (previously listed as Stillaguamish Tribe of Washington)
 * Stockbridge Munsee Community, Wisconsin
 * Summit Lake Paiute Tribe of Nevada
 * Suquamish Indian Tribe of the Port Madison Reservation (previously listed as Suquamish Indian Tribe of the Port Madison Reservation, Washington)
 * Susanville Indian Rancheria, California
 * Swinomish Indian Tribal Community (previously listed as Swinomish Indians of the Swinomish Reservation of Washington; Swinomish Indians of the Swinomish Reservation, Washington)
 * Sycuan Band of the Kumeyaay Nation (previously listed as Sycuan Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of California)

T

 * Table Mountain Rancheria (previously listed as Table Mountain Rancheria of California)
 * Tejon Indian Tribe (previously listed as Tejon Indian Tribe of California)
 * Te-Moak Tribe of Western Shoshone Indians of Nevada Four constituent bands:
 * Battle Mountain Band
 * Elko Band
 * South Fork Band
 * Wells Band
 * The Chickasaw Nation
 * The Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma
 * The Muscogee (Creek) Nation (previously listed as Muscogee (Creek) Nation, Oklahoma)
 * The Osage Nation (previously listed as Osage Tribe, Oklahoma)
 * The Seminole Nation of Oklahoma (previously listed as Seminole Nation of Oklahoma)
 * Thlopthlocco Tribal Town, Oklahoma
 * Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort Berthold Reservation, North Dakota
 * Timbisha Shoshone Tribe (previously listed as Death Valley Timbi-sha Shoshone Tribe of California; Death Valley Timbi-Sha Shoshone Band of California).
 * Tohono O'odham Nation of Arizona
 * Tolowa Dee-ni' Nation (previously listed as Smith River Rancheria, California)
 * Tonawanda Band of Seneca (previously listed as Tonawanda Band of Seneca Indians of New York)
 * Tonkawa Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma
 * Tonto Apache Tribe of Arizona
 * Torres Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians, California (previously listed as Torres-Martinez Band of Cahuilla Mission Indians of California)
 * Tulalip Tribes of Washington (previously listed as Tulalip Tribes of the Tulalip Reservation, Washington)
 * Tule River Indian Tribe of the Tule River Reservation, California
 * Tunica-Biloxi Indian Tribe (previously listed as Tunica-Biloxi Indian Tribe of Louisiana)
 * Tuolumne Band of Me-Wuk Indians of the Tuolumne Rancheria of California
 * Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians of North Dakota
 * Tuscarora Nation (previously listed as Tuscarora Nation of New York)
 * Twenty-Nine Palms Band of Mission Indians of California

U

 * United Auburn Indian Community of the Auburn Rancheria of California
 * United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma
 * Upper Mattaponi Tribe
 * Upper Sioux Community, Minnesota
 * Upper Skagit Indian Tribe (previously listed as Upper Skagit Indian Tribe of Washington)
 * Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah & Ouray Reservation, Utah
 * Ute Mountain Ute Tribe (previously listed as Ute Mountain Tribe of the Ute Mountain Reservation, Colorado, New Mexico & Utah)
 * Utu Utu Gwaitu Paiute Tribe of the Benton Paiute Reservation, California

W

 * Walker River Paiute Tribe of the Walker River Reservation, Nevada
 * Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head (Aquinnah) (previously listed as Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head (Aquinnah) of Massachusetts; Wampanoag Tribal Council of Gay Head, Inc.)
 * Washoe Tribe of Nevada & California
 * Carson Colony
 * Dresslerville Colony
 * Stewart Community
 * Washoe Ranches
 * Woodfords Community
 * White Mountain Apache Tribe of the Fort Apache Reservation, Arizona
 * Wichita and Affiliated Tribes (Wichita, Keechi, Waco & Tawakonie), Oklahoma
 * Wilton Rancheria, California
 * Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska
 * Winnemucca Indian Colony of Nevada
 * Wiyot Tribe, California (previously listed as Table Bluff Reservation—Wiyot Tribe)
 * Wyandotte Nation (previously listed as Wyandotte Nation, Oklahoma)

Y

 * Yankton Sioux Tribe of South Dakota
 * Yavapai-Apache Nation of the Camp Verde Indian Reservation, Arizona
 * Yavapai-Prescott Indian Tribe (previously listed as Yavapai-Prescott Tribe of the Yavapai Reservation, Arizona)
 * Yerington Paiute Tribe of the Yerington Colony & Campbell Ranch, Nevada
 * Yocha Dehe Wintun Nation, California (previously listed as Rumsey Indian Rancheria of Wintun Indians of California)
 * Yomba Shoshone Tribe of the Yomba Reservation, Nevada
 * Ysleta del Sur Pueblo (previously listed as Ysleta Del Sur Pueblo of Texas)
 * Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel Nation (previously listed as San Manuel Band of Mission Indians, California; San Manuel Band of Serrano Mission Indians of the San Manuel Reservation, California)
 * Yurok Tribe of the Yurok Reservation, California

Z

 * Zuni Tribe of the Zuni Reservation, New Mexico

Federal Register
The Federal Register is used by the BIA to publish the list of "Indian Entities Recognized and Eligible To Receive Services From the United States Bureau of Indian Affairs". Tribes in the contiguous 48 states and those in Alaska are listed separately.

Current version

 * Federal Register, Volume 89, FR 944, dated January 8, 2024 – 574 entities

Former versions

 * Federal Register, Volume 87, FR 4636, dated January 12, 2023 – 574 entities
 * Federal Register, Volume 85, Number 20 dated January 30, 2020 – 574 entities
 * Federal Register, Volume 84, Number 22 dated February 1, 2019 – 573 entities
 * Federal Register, Volume 83, Number 141 dated July 23, 2018 – 573 entities
 * Federal Register, Volume 83, Number 20 dated January 30, 2018 – 567 entities
 * Federal Register, Volume 82, Number 10 dated January 17, 2017 – 567 entities
 * Federal Register, Volume 81, Number 86 dated May 4, 2016 – 567 entities
 * Federal Register, Volume 81, Number 19 dated January 29, 2016 – 566 entities
 * Federal Register, Volume 80, Number 9 dated January 14, 2015 – 566 entities
 * Federal Register, Volume 78, Number 87 dated May 6, 2013 – 566 entities
 * Federal Register, Volume 77, Number 155 dated August 10, 2012 – 566 entities
 * Federal Register, Volume 75, Number 190 dated October 1, 2010, with a supplemental listing published in Federal Register, Volume 75, Number 207 dated October 27, 2010 – 565+1 entities
 * Federal Register, Volume 74, Number 153 dated August 11, 2009 – 564 entities
 * Federal Register, Volume 73, Number 66 dated April 4, 2008 – 562 entities
 * Federal Register, Volume 72, Number 55 dated March 22, 2007 – 561 entities
 * Federal Register, Volume 70, Number 226 dated November 25, 2005 – 561 entities
 * Federal Register, Volume 68, Number 234 dated December 5, 2003 – 562 entities
 * Federal Register, Volume 67, Number 134 dated July 12, 2002 – 562 entities
 * Federal Register, Volume 65, Number 49 dated March 13, 2000 – 556 entities
 * Federal Register, Volume 63, Number 250 dated December 30, 1998 – 555 entities
 * Federal Register, Volume 62, Number 205 dated October 23, 1997 – 555 entities
 * Federal Register, Volume 61, Number 220 dated November 13, 1996 – 555 entities
 * Federal Register, Volume 60, Number 32 dated February 16, 1995 – 552 entities
 * Federal Register, Volume 58, Number 202 dated October 21, 1993
 * Federal Register, Volume 53, Number 250 dated December 29, 1988
 * Federal Register, Volume 47, Number 227 dated November 24, 1982 – First time listing that includes native entities within the state of Alaska
 * Federal Register, Volume 44, Number 26 dated February 6, 1979 – First listing of Indian tribal entities within the contiguous 48 states


text:
Julius

Julius may refer to:

People

 * Julius (name), a masculine given name and surname (includes a list of people with the name)

 * Julius (nomen), the name of a Roman family (includes a list of Ancient Romans with the name)
 * Julius Caesar (100–44 BC), Roman military and political leader and one of the most influential men of classical antiquity
 * Julius (judge royal) (fl. before 1135), noble in the Kingdom of Hungary
 * Julius, Count of Lippe-Biesterfeld (1812–1884), German noble
 * Julius, Duke of Brunswick-Lüneburg (1528–1589), German noble

Arts and entertainment

 * Julius (Everybody Hates Chris), a character from the American sitcom
 * "Julius" (song), by Phish, 1994

Other uses

 * Julius (chimpanzee), a chimpanzee at Kristiansand Zoo and Amusement Park in Norway
 * Julius (month), the month of the ancient Roman calendar originally called Quintilis and renamed for Julius Caesar
 * Julius (restaurant), a tavern in Greenwich Village, New York City
 * Julius (software), an open-source speech recognition decoder

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

title: Julius


text:
Rochester Lourdes High School

Lourdes High School is a Catholic high school located in Rochester, Minnesota. It is a part of the Rochester Catholic School system and is located in the Roman Catholic Diocese of Winona.

Background
Lourdes High School (LHS) was initially for girls only and went coeducational in 1925 when nearby boys-only Heffron High School closed. When the school relocated to a location on Center Street in 1941 it was renamed Lourdes High School. It moved to a site near 19th Street and Valley High in 2013.

Administration
Dennis L. Nigon, Principal of Lourdes High School from 1987 to 2007, became President of Rochester Catholic Schools in 2007. Mr. Nigon has 39 years of experience in Catholic high schools, and is in charge of the Lourdes Building Our Future project, to build a new facility for Lourdes High School.

Academic performance
LHS uses modular scheduling, students usually having classes into 36-minute class periods, with each class meeting about four of five days of the school week.

Lourdes High School has additional academic requirements beyond those commonly found at public high schools.

Lourdes students averaged a score of 26 on the ACT examination in the 2006–2007 academic year, meaning that the average Lourdes' student scored higher than 80% of national ACT takers.

Math League
The Lourdes High School Math League in 2008 won first place in the Hiawatha Division, as well as attending the State Competition on March 12, 2007, taking second place in the Small Schools Division. LHS student, Patti Geisler, won first place of all high schools in the division for highest individual score. 6 of the top 10 students of all high schools in 2008 were from Lourdes high school. (Post Bulletin, page A4 February 15, 2008)

Science Club
The science club was established around 2005. The club is made up of students dedicated to increasing their knowledge of science. In 2007, the club formed its second team to take to the Envirothon Competition. After taking second place in the regional competition, the team went on to the state tournament. In 2010, the team finished fourth in the regional competition by one point. That team was led by Taylor Nelson and Andrew Lose.

Chess Club
Lourdes also boasts the city's top ranked high school chess team after defeating local rival Century High School in the 2008 city championship while going on to finish 7th in the state competition.

Football
In 2006, the Lourdes varsity football team advanced to the semi-finals of the state tournament. The current head coach is Mike Kesler. The first year of Kesler's coaching career was a 2–7 season. But every year since has been a successful winning season making the state tournament three straight years in 06, 07, and 08.

In November 2010, Rochester Lourdes won the Minnesota State Class 3A football title with a convincing 42–13 win over Holy Family. Lourdes finished the season undefeated.

Soccer
In 1997, Lourdes had a boys soccer team for the first time. The Lourdes boy soccer team won the Minnesota State Soccer Championship for Class A in 1998 and 1999. In 1995, Tom Kane, the current varsity coach for boys soccer at Lourdes, campaigned heavily for a school-sanctioned team.

The 1998 Boys team (the first out-state Minnesota soccer team to win state) beat LaCresent (4–3), Mankato West (2–0) and Caledonia (2–0 section championship game) on their way to state. At state, Lourdes came back from a 2–0 deficit to win 3–2 against Benilde-St. Margaret's in overtime in the state quarterfinals. They then proceeded to beat Duluth Marshall 1–0 to claim the championship.

The 2006–2007 season found Lourdes falling to Benilde-St. Margaret's 2–5 in the semi-finals and tying Totino-Grace 1–1 for third place.

Ice hockey
In the 1960s, Gene Campbell and Ken Johannson were the inaugural coaches for the boys' hockey program.

title: Rochester Lourdes High School


text:
Army General (Soviet rank)

Army general (генерал армии) was a rank of the Soviet Union which was first established in June 1940 as a high rank for Red Army generals, inferior only to the marshal of the Soviet Union. In the following 51 years the Soviet Union created 133 generals of the army, 32 of whom were later promoted to the rank of marshal of the Soviet Union. It is a direct counterpart of the Russian Federation's "Army general" rank.

Promotion
The rank was usually given to senior officers of the Ministry of Defence and General Staff, and also to meritorious military district commanders. From the 1970s, it was also frequently given to the heads of the KGB and the Ministry of the Interior.

Soviet army generals include Ivan Chernyakhovsky (the youngest Soviet World War II front commander, killed in East Prussia), Aleksei Antonov (head of the General Staff in the closing stages of World War II, awarded the Order of Victory), Issa Pliyev (an Ossetian-born World War II commander who played a major role in the Cuban Missile Crisis) and Yuri Andropov (who held the rank as head of the KGB).

The Soviet rank of army general is equivalent to the UK and US ranks of general; Soviet and current Russian rank systems also have a marshal rank.

The corresponding naval rank is fleet admiral, which has been used in both the Soviet and Russian navies, although conferred much more rarely.

Army general was used for the infantry and marines, but in the air force, artillery, armoured troops, engineer troops and signal troops the ranks of marshal of the branch and chief marshal of the branch were used.

title: Army General (Soviet rank)


text:
Image macro

An image macro is a piece of digital media featuring a picture, or artwork, with some form of text superimposed. The text frequently appears at the top and bottom of the image. Image macros were one of the most common forms of internet memes in the 2000s, and often featured witty messages or catchphrases, although not all image macros are necessarily humorous. LOLcats, which are images of expressive cats coupled with texts, are considered to be the first notable occurrence of image macros. Advice animal image macros, also referred to as stock-character macros, are also highly associated with the image macro template.

Etymology and use
The term "image macro" originated on the Something Awful forums. The name derived from the fact that the "macros" were a short bit of text a user could enter that the forum software would automatically parse and expand into the code for a pre-defined image. This, in turn, related to the computer science concept of a macroinstruction; "a rule or pattern that specifies how a certain input sequence (often a sequence of characters) should be mapped to an output sequence (also often a sequence of characters) according to a defined procedure".

Beginning in 2007, lolcats and similar image macros (a form of internet phenomenon) spread beyond the initial communities who created them and became widely popular.

Formats
Although they come in many forms, the most common type of image macros consists of:
 * 1) Text, typically a large text in the Impact font, centered at the top and bottom of the image, usually using all upper-case letters. White text with a black border is typically used because it is easily readable on almost any background color. Typically, the text at the top is only for introduction and the text at the bottom is the main message. Exaggerated, intentional spelling errors are also used frequently for humorous effect.
 * 2) An image to be placed behind the text. These are typically drawn from a specific set of images that are understood by many Internet users, such as Bad Luck Brian. However, by using the aforementioned typographic style, any image can take on the context or aesthetic of an image macro.

Examples

Cats and other animals in general have been a popular choice for images with humorous captions since the mid 2000s. Some common animal-related image macros include lolcats, every time you masturbate... God kills a kitten, O RLY?, Doge and Grumpy Cat.

O RLY is often used on the internet as an abbreviation for the phrase "Oh, really?" Originally started with a snowy owl photograph (which is the classic O RLY image macro), it spread out over the Web quickly and was followed by other macros that convey a wide range of emotions.

Another style of image macro that has amassed its own separate subculture is the "lolcat", an image combining a photograph of a cat with text intended to contribute humour. The text is often idiosyncratic and grammatically incorrect, and its use in this way is known as "lolspeak". Many times, the image is told from the point of view of the animal.

"Rage faces" from rage comics are used to humorously depict an everyday or exaggerated situation or reaction. Although Rage Comics in themselves are not image macros, images of specific rage faces are taken and put into image macro format and used in conjunction to their implied emotion or context.

Another popular type of image macro includes a picture of a certain person or figure drawn from various sources in front of a colored background, known as "advice animals". These "characters" often share the same image, but different internet users can choose different humorous captions. These characters can include "Bad Luck Brian", "Success Kid", and "Scumbag Steve", among others. Bad Luck Brian image captions are used for unfortunate situations, Success Kid image captions depict an everyday situation involving good luck, and Scumbag Steve captions describe an unfriendly action taken by somebody.

Websites such as Know Your Meme document image macros such as Bad Luck Brian that have become popular enough to become internet memes, covering such topics as their original intended meaning, spread and popularity (as measured by Google search interest over time).

Another common trend in image macros is using specific scenes from television or movies such as One does not simply walk into Mordor from Lord of the Rings and 'Not Sure If-' from Futurama that uses a screen image of the character Fry looking unsure with his eyes squinted.

title: Image macro


text:
Talk:Snap, Crackle and Pop

Propose to add disambiguation line at the top for the physics aspect
I think it would improve clarity to add an initial "disambiguation line" for the physics aspect of the topic compared to just having an "Physics" heading on a page that apparently in all other respects is just about the cartoon mascots. At first look I dismissed the page having any physics-related content because of this appearance and lack of the familiar disambiguation line. I later found the section of the page through a link from the Jounce page.

Even if the Physics part would remain hosted on this page a disambiguation line could still be introduced to link directly to it. --Xkr47 (talk) 08:25, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

I think that's a great idea. Please add it! --Neil Schoolman (talk) 01:12, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

So I did, but apparently User:Georgia guy thought it was strange and removed it.. Will split the physics section to its own page then.. --Xkr47 (talk) 07:40, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

The physics aspect should be mentioned on this page even if it has its own page. I restored the section. --Neil Schoolman (talk) 09:49, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Can you please elaborate why it should be on this page? I added a disambiguation link, just like other pages that share a name for different subjects, so it was in my opinion clearly still part of the page. Are there more ways to do this than the two I tried so far? I really feel the least accesible version is now back in effect. Wishing for more feedback from Georgia guy and Neil Schoolman.. --Xkr47 (talk) 21:17, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Missing citation
Anyone know where to find the last source? It is dead: 'Visser p. 4' doesn't lead to anything. I tried to Google it to no avail. --Scientificaldan (talk) 21:51, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Furthermore, the first source is also missing. Astrotyro (talk) 17:55, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

title: Talk:Snap, Crackle and Pop


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Contact efficiency

 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 -- Francs2000 | Talk 11:35, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Contact efficiency
Advertising theory cruft? the phrase shows few hits on google, and my be a neologism or adspeak. humblefool® 17:39, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, obscure, and if someone later wants to write a real encyclopedic article on the subject then they can start from scratch (an improvement). Tempshill 18:22, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep even though there isn't enough information to understand even the basics on the theme and there are few google hits, seems like encyclopaedia material to me. Needs to be expanded, of course.-Poli (talk • contribs) 23:20, 2005 July 25 (UTC)
 * Delete. I'll change my vote if someone can cite a reference in the article space. Fernando Rizo T/C 23:47, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * The references I found on the topic, searching on "Contact efficiency" and marketing, were actually related to internet marketing. The current definition appears related to disintermediation and cutting out the middleman. — RJH 19:49, 26 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:
Marc Webb

Marc Preston Webb is an American filmmaker and music video director. Webb made his feature film directorial debut in 2009 with the romantic comedy 500 Days of Summer and went on to direct The Amazing Spider-Man and The Amazing Spider-Man 2, which were later dubbed the "Webb-Verse" by Marvel Studios in 2021. He also directed the drama films Gifted and The Only Living Boy in New York.

Early life
Webb was born in Bloomington, Indiana, the son of Margaret Ruth (née Stocker), a scientist, and Norman Lott Webb, who works in math education at the University of Wisconsin. When he was eighteen months old, Webb's family moved to Madison, Wisconsin, where he was raised. He graduated from Madison West High School in 1992, and subsequently attended Colorado College, and the University of Wisconsin–Madison, from which he graduated with an English degree.

Career
Webb began his trade as an editor before turning his hand to directing music videos. He told The Daily Beast: "The very first video I did was for a band called The Shame Idols in Birmingham, Alabama, and I paid for it on a credit card and my mom loaned me about $500 to finish it. It was actually about a superhero—a Catwoman-y type of thing. This woman who sewed the costume together, and we shot it on 16mm film. You can't see it anywhere and it's not on YouTube—and I'm glad it's not. The first video that got shown was a Blues Traveler video called "Canadian Rose," but I just did the concept stuff for it. Between 1999 and 2009, he directed videos for the likes of Good Charlotte, Evanescence, AFI, 3 Doors Down, Green Day, My Chemical Romance and Snow Patrol.

His feature-length debut, 500 Days of Summer, starring Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Zooey Deschanel, was released in July 2009 to a positive critical reception. In January 2010, Columbia Pictures hired Webb to direct The Amazing Spider-Man, a reboot of the Spider-Man film franchise, released in July 2012 and starring Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone. He returned to direct the sequel, The Amazing Spider-Man 2, which was released on May 2, 2014. Developing the 2021 Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU) film Spider-Man: No Way Home for Marvel Studios, Chris McKenna and Erik Sommers officially dubbed the fictional universe of Webb's Spider-Man films as the Webb-Verse in his honor. In November 2021, it was also revealed that he, along with Sam Raimi, were brought on as creative consultants for the film.

In 2015, Webb directed promotional ads for a partnership between Samsung and Avengers: Age of Ultron.

Webb is signed to DNA in Hollywood, California, and Academy Productions Ltd in the United Kingdom.

In February 2019, he signed on to direct the live-action reimagined version of the 2016 Japanese anime film Your Name before he was replaced on September 18, 2020 by Lee Isaac Chung and a year later by Carlos López Estrada In May 2019, it was announced that Webb will direct a live-action adaptation of Disney's Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs.

In 2013, Christopher Keyser and Webb pitched the mystery drama The Society to Showtime, but the network later decided to pass on the series. Netflix turned the pitch into a series instead; created by Keyser and executive produced by both Keyser and Webb, The Society premiered on May 19, 2019. In July 2019, it was announced that Webb and his Black Lamb production company signed a deal with ABC Studios. In March 2022, Webb signed on to direct the supernatural thriller Day Drinker, written by Zach Dean.

Personal life
On June 8, 2018, Webb's girlfriend Jane Herman gave birth to a daughter, Georgia. The couple married on October 4, 2019. A son, Walter, was born on April 5, 2021.

Webb's lamb
Webb's signature is a white lamb, which has appeared in a few of his videos. In Brand New's "Sic Transit Gloria... Glory Fades" video, the lamb appears on the door before Jesse Lacey enters the bar. It also appears on the shirt of a girl in the bar. In Yellowcard's "Ocean Avenue" and "Rough Landing, Holly" videos, the lamb appears on the briefcase Ryan Key carries around.

Film

 * 500 Days of Summer (2009)
 * The Amazing Spider-Man (2012)
 * The Amazing Spider-Man 2 (2014)
 * Gifted (2017)
 * The Only Living Boy in New York (2017)
 * Snow White (2025)

Music videos
Editor videography
 * MxPx – "Everything Sucks (When You're Gone)" (November 2003)
 * Brand New – "Sic Transit Gloria.... Glory Fades" (December 2003)

title: Marc Webb


text:
Army general (France)

Army general (Général d'armée) is the highest active military rank of the French Army and the National Gendarmerie. It is also used in the Air and Space Force, where it is called Général d'armée aérienne.

Officially, it is not a rank but a position and style bestowed on some divisional generals, which is the highest substantive rank, in charge of important commands, such as Chief of Staff of the French Army or Chief of the Defence Staff. It is an OF–9 NATO rank, equivalent to the French Navy rank of admiral.

In the army, only a Marshal of France has precedence; however, Marshal of France is not a rank but a dignity in the State, and the last Marshal of France died in 1967.

History
The rank was created on 6 June 1939 by a decree of the President of the French Republic published in the Journal Officiel de la République Française, following a joint report by the Ministers of War, of the Navy and of the Air. They came to the conclusion that the higher hierarchy was more often in relation with the one of other countries, which frequently had more than two general ranks. By necessity, two positions and styles were created to address this issue, army general and corps general. The decree also provided that the divisional generals already commanding a corps were made corps generals and the ones members of the Superior War Council army generals.

Insignia description
A French army general displays five stars on a shoulder board; the number of stars should not be compared with that of generals from other NATO countries, usually denoted by four stars only. The rank in the National Gendarmerie additionally displays a golden grenade above the stars. No shoulder board are worn on the full dress or service dress uniform; instead, the insignia is worn on the sleeves.

After the Second World War the design of the full dress uniform kepi for a general changed, now also displaying the stars. It was already the case for field headgear, with no other ornament than the stars.

Other
The mention of the current usage of "a sixth star authorized for the army general in command of the Paris sector" is an urban legend.

The title of army general in France and elsewhere should not be confused with the rank of general of the army, which is more senior, and corresponds to other countries' marshal or field marshal. The rank of "general of the army" theoretically corresponds to overall command of an entire national army with several armies in the field, while the title "army general" only corresponds to the command of an individual army in the field.

title: Army general (France)


text:
User:Siyavash

Siyavash is my name (in ), (Japanese: シアヴァシ).

 * Ethnicity

 * Beliefs and Practices

 * Interests (including, but not limited to)

 * Sports and skills

 * Education
 * Favorite Television Programs

 * Miscellenious

es:Usuario:Siyavash nl:Gebruiker:Siyavash sl:Uporabnik:Siyavash

title: User:Siyavash


text:
Tan Lark Sye

Tan Lark Sye (1897–1972) was a prominent Chinese businessman and philanthropist based in Singapore.

Early life
Tan was born in a Hoklo peasant family of seven in Jimei of Tong An in Fujian, China. Born into of very limited means, and orphaned young, he had little chance of an education before he made his way to Nanyang in 1916 together with his brothers, at the age of 18.

Career
In Singapore, Tan worked in one of Tan Kah Kee's factories, and within half a year he was promoted to a responsible position in Tan Kah Kee's Khiam Aik (Qianyi) company. Not long afterward, he left the company to set up a rubber enterprise with the help from his brothers, but the enterprise lost half its capital in a year.

Tan then ran it alone and after several years, he built up his Aik Hoe (Yihe) rubber company and became one of the leading rubber industrialists of the region. He expanded his business to all parts of Malaya, Thailand and India and diversified into insurance, paper and cement industries. His career as an industrialist peaked in the 1950s, when his company reaped huge profits from the rising price of rubber.

Later life
Tan was stripped of his Malayan citizenship in Singapore in 1963 by the Malaysian Federal Government as a suspected communist, and remained stateless since then. Tan died in 1972 in Singapore at the age of 76, leaving behind 11 sons and 3 daughters.

Contributions and legacy
Tan was an activist, and like other entrepreneurs of his time, he believed in the value of education. As chairman of the Chinese Chamber of Commerce in the 1950s, he fought for citizenship for Chinese people in Singapore and for the Chinese language to be one of Singapore's official languages.

As the long-time president of the Singapore Hokkien Huay Kuan, Tan Lark Sye contributed generously to charitable and educational causes throughout his life. He provided strong support for educational institutions under the auspices of the association, including Kong Hwa School, Tao Nan School, Nan Chiau Girls' High School, and Chongfu School. He also contributed to financing the institutions in Jimei founded by Tan Kah Kee.

In 1957 he donated considerable sums to Thailand's Hokkien clan association to build overseas Chinese schools. His contributions to education, however, were not confined to Chinese schools. In 1949, when the University of Malaya was set up, Tan donated S$300,000, and between 1950 and 1960 he contributed to the building of schools of different language mediums.

Tan's most outstanding contribution, however, was the initiating of the founding of Nanyang University in 1953. He donated S$5 million to its building fund, as well as 523 acre of land for its campus on behalf of the Hokkien Huay Kuan. Between 1953 and 1963, he was Chairman of Nanyang University's Executive Committee, and was in charge of various aspects of the university by building, teaching staff, research facilities, library, student welfare and others. Nanyang University was later merged with The University of Singapore in 1980 to form the current National University of Singapore.

The establishment of Nanyang University had a lasting influence on Chinese education in the region and beyond. It pioneered the establishment of Chinese Studies departments in Ngee Ann College, the University of Singapore and the University of Malaya. The establishment of the Chinese University of Hong Kong, and the Southern University College in Johor, Malaysia, were also inspired by the ideals underlying the founding of Nanyang University.

In 1974, a Tan Lark Sye scholarship was set up, and in 1998 the Tan Lark Sye professorship in Chinese language and culture was established to honour Tan.

Honours
Tan Lark Sye Library, New Era University College, Malaysia was named after him.

On 19 October 2019, two parts of Nanyang Technological University (NTU) were re-named in honour of the pioneering contributions made by Tan Lark Sye and the Hokkien Huay Kuan to Singapore's education. Nanyang Valley, a road in front of the Chinese Heritage Centre, was renamed the “Tan Lark Sye Walk”. In tandem, the College of Humanities, Arts and Social Sciences building was renamed the “Singapore Hokkien Huay Kuan Building”.

title: Tan Lark Sye


text: User:Amcaja/Graphics

title: User:Amcaja/Graphics


text:
Talk:Starlight problem

Problems with the article
"However it was later pointed out that Setterfield's own source for this information directly contradicts this claim, and in fact demonstrates that the speed he measured is identical to the modern value." I'm a bit concerned by this sentence because while it is true that while Troitskii was trying to show a big bang cosmology what he was calculating was a value far from "identical to the modern value." Unless other citation can be found the phrase "directly contradicts" should be removed because the it does not address if this has occurred.BrianFrenzy007 (talk) 15:45, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

"The problem with the “in-transit” theory is that if it is true, the events that astronomers are now seeing that happened at vast distances away from us never actually happened."

How is that a problem at all? It seems to me that it's no different from fossil records of animals and plants which appear to have lived and died long before the universe is claimed to have been created; looking at the fossil is observation of an event that "never actually happened", but for believers, that doesn't falsify young-Earth Creationism. Why would creating light from fake archaic supernova explosions be any more difficult than creating fossils from fake archaic organisms?129.97.79.144 16:42, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

 * In one sense, it's not a problem. A god supposedly could create the universe with the illusion of ago, but this would make that god a deceiver. The other problem is that there is no reason to think it is true. I could propose that the universe was created last Thursday, complete with the illusion of age and complete with false memories. That of course gives no reason whatsoever to think that it is true. It's not logically impossible, but it causes theological problems, yet resolves nothing.--RLent 23:04, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

We need to ensure that the context of this problem (i.e. it's only a problem for Young Earth Creationists) is stated right up front. DJ Clayworth 16:33, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

That's a terrible summary of Humphrey's book. The book is mainly concerned with a solution to some relativistic equations in a (posited) bounded universe. DJ Clayworth 16:36, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

 * Safe to say that much of this article is rubbish. The part about telescopes "shrinking" distances is extraordinary.  I've no idea about Humphrey's book, but if it's a creationist tract, I don't suppose it matters how it's summarised.  Either way, it's bending science to suit one particular theology.  --Plumbago 16:45, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

 * Are we only supposed to be accurate about things we agree with? I don't think so. Every point of view deserves to be written about accurately. How else can we judge between them?

The part about 'telescopes shrinking distances' is utterly bizarre. I propose that unless it is explained by someone very soon it is removed. DJ Clayworth 17:44, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Agreed (and paragraph removed). I was flabbergasted when I first read that paragraph.  I can't believe it's been in this article so long.   (I was sorry to remove the beautiful picture of the Keck telescopes referenced in the paragraph.)  If anyone thinks the paragraph should be restored, I'd like to see a good reference included with it. --JeremyStein

 * Hello again. Apologies for my previously rude remarks about representing Humphrey's book properly.  Of course it's best for things to be as accurate as possible.  I was just a bit fed up with YEC posturing elsewhere (that's no excuse of course).

 * Anyway, I just wanted to query the references to the work by Paul Davies et al. It's very much not my area of expertise, but is their work saying :

 * The speed of light may have been different in the past (where "the past" is the deep past), or
 * The speed of light may have been different in the past to the extent that the universe has a radically different age to that which we currently assume

 * I've certainly never read the latter position being seriously discussed, but the former is certainly possible given how much uncertainty there is around cosmological evolution. Can anyone clarify?  It's just that, at the moment, the article's started to sound like there's the whiff of evidence for the YEC stance - and my gut feeling is that the use of references is giving very much the wrong impression.  --Plumbago 17:28, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Time, distance, and the speed of light
Further to my note above, I now think this whole section should be (re)moved. It deals with an ongoing scientific discussion that, while about the speed of light and cosmic evolution, has otherwise little to do with the stance taken by YECs. The outcome of this discussion will not help the YEC cause, as this seeks a truncation of the age of the universe far in excess of what appears remotely possible. Leaving the text in makes it appear like there is some evidence for the YEC view (and granting this view undue scientific credability). I'd prefer not to entirely delete the text, but it looks like its content may be adequately described elsewhere (e.g. speed of light; variable speed of light). If you disagree, please comment, otherwise it's out. --Plumbago 10:41, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

 * You still hear Young Earth Creationists using a change in the speed of light as an argument. I believe the biggest names have given up on it, but perhaps it would be better to list the problems with the hypothesis rather than delete the section. --JeremyStein 14:52, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

 * I agree with you about the YECs using the argument (though it's losing favour). My problem with the section is that it's very long on technical detail about the speed of light as regards cosmic evolution, none of which really has anything to do with the starlight problem (in a YEC sense).  I reckon it should be trimmed back to some statement along the lines of : "While there is debate in astrophysical circles about the constancy of the speed of light during the early history of the universe [cite references], any variability in the speed is vastly insufficient to explain the starlight problem."  I'm just a bit afraid that the section gives YEC an undue veneer of scientific respectability as it currently stands.  Similar scientific or technical disputes in evolutionary biology have been misused in the past to lend credability to YEC views.  It'd be best to avoid it here.  --Plumbago 15:05, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

 * Thanks to whoever removed the offending section. --Plumbago 17:25, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Tu Quoque
Hmmm. I'm not sure about this new section. It's describing essentially bad faith arguments on the part of AiG that try to cast doubt on mainstream cosmology rather than shore up YEC cosmology (for all the obvious reasons). Anyone care to comment? --Plumbago 10:30, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

 * I removed the section. Besides Plumbago's objections, claiming that inflation is only a mathematical model ignores the confirmations it has received from WMAP. --ScienceApologist 13:16, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

 * Ah. OK.  In which case, you might want to check out the other changes made to the article earlier today.  The "Tu Quoque" most concerned me, but there are changes in tone (and an emphasis on AiG references) that are a little odd.  Thanks, by the way, for sorting out the astronomy stuff - waaaaay outside my (tiny) area of expertise.  --Plumbago 13:21, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

 * Oh. It's all gone now.  --Plumbago 13:24, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

 * It's back. An article on an alleged problem for YECs should provide responses from the leading YECs, including tu quoque.  And the so-called science apologist should check out Wiki's own page on cosmic inflation to see how it still relies on hypothetical entities like the inflaton field.  And he is dreaming if he thinks that the tiny fluctuations from WMAP prove something so hypothetical. 220.245.180.134 04:48, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

 * Erm, since when was AiG a reputable source of scientific information? The slightest scan of almost any of its articles reveals inaccuracy, misrepresentation, or simple bad faith.  While they've certainly got some clever people working for them, I can't help but be reminded of a quote that I'm sure is very familiar to the folks at AiG :
 * [I] would rather be descended from an ape than from

a cultivated man who used his gifts of culture and

eloquence in the service of prejudice and falsehood
 * --Plumbago 09:51, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

 * As if you're in any position to know.  It's going back as a way creationists deal with the problem.  And why don't you read the article on cosmic inflation, as well as the 219 scientists who call the inflaton field "hypothetical"?220.245.180.134 03:47, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

 * You might want to try counting again and see how many of those "scientists" are cosmologists. Your writing is getting more and more virulent and you are violating one or two policies and guidelines of Wikipedia. --ScienceApologist 03:49, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

 * Many of the signatories are respected cosmogonists, and it is hard to dispute that the inflaton field, dark matter and dark energy are hypothetical. And the author of the AiG tu quoque article is a Ph.D. astrophysicist.  If you are going to whinge about alleged lack of civility, then quit revoking and quit abusing me as a POV-pusher, and instead whinge about the abusive Plumbago.220.245.180.134 03:57, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

 * Cosmogonists, eh? I guess one can call themselves a "cosmogonist" and do whatever they want. Most of the signatories are neither cosmologists nor respected in this matter, but that's beside the point, the Big Bang is far and away the consensus horizon problem or not. Inflation isn't really hypothetical anymore since its parameters were measured by WMAP. In fact, since scalar fields are so ubiquitous it is more difficult to parameterize the universe without inflation than with inflation. I suggest you stop pushing your point of view so much as such is a violation of policy. --ScienceApologist 18:49, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

 * Of course cosmogonists. And "consensus" means nothing in science.  What matters is the evidence. And it's simply not true to say that WMAP proves inflation.  Rather, the big bang is assumed, but the background radiation is so uniform that inflation was proposed to explain it away.  But since there is no physical mechanism to start or stop doesn't count as an explanation at all.  So stop pushing your atheistic POV in violation of Wiki policy. 220.245.180.134 04:20, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

 * Consensus actually means more than you think in science. In particular, we have an article written on the subject here. The Big Bang is not "assumed" in the analysis of WMAP, rather the only model that fits the measurements is the Big Bang. No one else has shown otherwise. There are plenty of physical mechanisms that "start" and "stop" inflation since the only thing needed to start inflation is a scalar field and inflation stops when the scalar field reaches the bottom of the potential and reheats. --ScienceApologist 13:47, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

 * Erm, abusive? If I was being abusive at all, it was to the writers over at AiG.  And rather tamely at that.  As regards the matter at hand, while there's dispute within science about the early evolution of the universe, that's a long, long way from support for creationism.  As has occurred repeatedly within biology, creationists misuse disputes within the field, and present them as if they were support for their own cosmologies.  --Plumbago 17:57, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Mr. Plumbago, it's one thing to discard citations from ICR that make scientific claims, but on what basis do you discard citations that are restricted to the arena of theology, in a short paragraph that is discussing the theology of the starlight problem? Ruby 18:02, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

 * See below (in the Omphalos section). --Plumbago 18:15, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

 * Isn't is obvious? Evolutionists are experts on everything, and thus can pontificate even on theology.  But creationists by Plumbago's definition cannot be experts on anything, even fields in which they have earned Ph.D.
 * And Plumbago thinks that citing a hostile witness is "misusing disputes". 220.245.180.134 04:20, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

 * Erm, "evolutionist"? Try "scientist".  And as a scientist, I have some expertise in distinguishing science from something that's been carefully dressed up as science.  I certainly amn't disputing the qualifications of YECs, but they're inappropriately using their knowledge to bend over backwards and (badly) shoehorn their pet theory into mainstream science.  As evidenced by the complete lack of published science on said pet theory.  Oh, sorry, I forgot, there's a hidden conspiracy between tens of thousands of scientists distributed through hundreds of institutes over five continents that carefully suppresses YEC research while all the time giving the impression that it's unbiased.  My mistake.  --Plumbago 12:41, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Anon contributions
Whoever is contributing, please explain your opinions on the subject here. Thanks, --ScienceApologist 03:32, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 * No, please explain your reversions. One section was unsourced about how creationists allegedly first handled the problems, so it is original research forbidden on Wiki. 220.245.180.134 04:50, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Ridiculous posturing. Kent Hovind is a good example of someone who used to claim that no distances beyond 100 light years could be measured. There are still some people who follow the "old Kent" such as this person: . --ScienceApologist 14:58, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 * No, it is ridiculous to assert things without verification, contrary to Wiki rules. So put up or shut up!220.245.180.134 03:40, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * You need to breathe. We are writing an encyclopedia article, not fighting a battle. The reference is right above your post. --ScienceApologist 03:46, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Where is the evidence that this isolated incident by some unknown reflect the original creationist response? Also, what Hovind actually claims is (in a debate with Hugh Ross on the John Ankerberg Show):
 * I mentioned earlier, you can’t tell the distance to these stars, 14 billion light years away. They might be—they probably are. But we can’t measure that, and it’s silly for us for humans, little humans on Earth to say, we know the distance to that star, 14 billion light years away, it can’t be done.
 * I.e. he is against dogmatism about the precision of the measurements but agrees that the huge distances are probably real.220.245.180.134 04:08, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

 * Hovind's pathological skepticism is a well-worn tactic of creationists and was advocated as a response early on in the creation-evolution controversy with regards to this particular question. The starlight problem was virulently attacked by Marshall and Sandra Hall in 1975 as being based on inaccurate astronomy in their first popular tract on the subject (arguably one of the founding members of the creationist movement). That distances to objects are hard to measure was a common attack that creationists would use (believing that the cosmic distance ladder was too full of inaccuracies to be believed). Hovind softened his tone after being trounced by a number of anti-creationists for his ignorance on the subject but he is a good example of someone who doesn't like to admit he was ever wrong. --ScienceApologist 06:28, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

 * Irrelevant to the debate. And Marshall Hall is a geocentrist rather than having any standing in the creationist movement, as well as long post-dating The Genesis Flood.  And as shown, Hovind didn't claim what you said he did.  So we still have no evidence that YECs would have used this alleged "first solution". Thus that section is violates the rule under every editing window "Content ... must be verifiable" 220.245.180.134 04:59, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

 * "Any standing in the creationist movement" -- let's be honest about your POV. You are biased against geocentrists. That's fine, but don't impose your own biases on these articles. Hall is a self-described creationist.
 * Hovind claims that there are errors in the measurement of distances. This is a fact. That's all the section you keep removing is saying. It was a first solution as demonstrated above. Ignorance of your movements beginnings is no excuse for removing this factual history.
 * --ScienceApologist 14:48, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * You need remedial comprehension lessons. Not only is Hall not mainstream creationist (why, do you like geocentrism or something?) but he can hardly be evidence of the first attempts to solve the problem. Nor can Hovind, who is a contemporary of ours not a "first attempt", and the reference claims only that one should not be dogmatic about the accuracy of the distances while agreeing that they are probably real.
 * So if you want the section to remain, you must provide historical sources from, say, before The Genesis Flood that show that creationists had invoked this reasoning. Otherwise it violates the Wiki rule on verifiability.220.245.180.134 04:10, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * There were no creationists before The Genesis Flood according to History of Creationism. You need to be aware that creation science as an idealization and criticism of specific scientific arguments didn't exist until then. Moreover, more than a few of the early movers-and-shakers in the creation science movement were criticizing astronomical distance measures and Hovind just happens to be one who enjoys bandwagons in his movement. --ScienceApologist 07:31, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

 * What appalling historical revisionism. Most of the Church Fathers and Reformers were YECs, as were the founders of most branches of science.  And you STILL haven't provided a source as Wikin rules require for what early creationists did or "would have" done.

 * That's a silly comment. I suppose you expect that I'm going to act as though the claims of creationism in historical scientists is somehow a convincing argument. Newton was a YEC! O Lordy! I must have strayed from the right righteous Christian tradition of Jesus' death being the source of all science. Maybe if I repent and am born again science will also be reborn and our anonymous contributor will be given a Nobel Prize. O that I've seen the light! --ScienceApologist 18:47, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Even sillier is claiming that a YEC can't be a scientist, while the greatest scientist of all time was a YEC! Note that ancient-earth ideas were common among the Greeks.

 * This greatest scientist of all must have been the first person in the Holy Trinity. --ScienceApologist 16:22, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

 * When you get off your high-horse, please grace us all with a creationist from 1900-1950 who made this "first attempt to address the problem" in the "early part of the 20th century". Wiki doesn't allow what you think YECs would have claimed; you are required to verify this.203.213.77.138 07:29, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Price is a good example, but by no means the only example. The Creation Society of Mid-America is a good starting point. --ScienceApologist 16:22, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Again, please provide a reference for an early claim.203.213.77.138 04:38, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

"Wikiformatting"
Your formatting choice is actually not in conformity with Wikipedia policy on external links and references. --ScienceApologist 06:30, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Omphalos
I won't revert again just yet. But your point is unnecessary since it's covered earlier in the same section where Omphalos is discussed. And no-one's saying that the in-transit theory is "unbiblical", merely that it has some unfortunate theological implications. If God created in-transit light or belly buttons on Adam and Eve, then He has effectively created a "false history" of the heavens and Adam and Eve's birth (in the latter case, since neither Adam nor Eve were born, there's no need for belly buttons). Some (such as Charles Kingsley; see here) see this interpretation of the Bible as repellent, since it implies that God lies. --Plumbago 18:10, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

 * I will revert. We don't need to pepper our articles with tit-for-tat arguments for and against. Omphalos can be discussed in regards to its definition and should not be placed in as a counter-criticism. --ScienceApologist 18:36, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

You have to go with ICR which makes the connection, in order to play by WP rules. Ruby 18:46, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

 * Gosse is not the sole provider of Omphalos creationism. --ScienceApologist 20:44, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

 * I withdraw since the other editors see fit to use original research to justify the existence of this article. Ruby 21:41, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

 * "Original research"? Aside from its subject, the meat of the starlight problem is identical to that posed (and "solved") in Omphalos.  It's hardly original to point that out.  --Plumbago 22:44, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

The objection raised that God created a "false history" lacks logic and is merely a red herring. There is nothing gained by God nor does it cause His creation any "harm" or negative impact. As Adam and Eve was created with the full complement of genes which are expressed, there is no logical reason why they should necessarily be without belly buttons.

 * Care to explain why the "false history" objection lacks logic? It's a simple point : were Adam and Eve created with bellybuttons / were the heavens created with the remnants of supernovas, etc.?  If they were, then God arranged things such that they appear to have (but don't really) a history behind them.  Where's the problem with that argument?  As for Adam and Eve's genes, is there a gene for bellybuttons?  I think not.  --Plumbago 09:14, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

This article is VERY biased and shows little to no understanding
"The star light problem is the problem that the star light appears to have travelled millions/billions of years. This article does not show where these times are taken from because it is written obviously by an beginner. Star light distances are based on redshift frequencies. This is werthy of note because the interpretation of the red shift is what derives the distance. The different theories (mainly c decay theory) are based on a different interpretation of the redshift. The article says that the speed of light has been accuratly mesaured to be constant over 300 years. No source is stated, this is completely false. The speed of light is constant only when measured with an atomic clock, with a dynamic clock (such as a fraction of an earth orbit or a mechanical clock) it has been shown to change. The article states c decay theory must be invalid because light from distance stars is dated to be millions of years old (measured with atomic clocks). The c decay theory agrees with this, but states dynamically c has been declining at a rate which makes dynamical time different than atomic time. It is so obvious that the author has never read any of the c decay work because c decay does not say the speed of light, timed with an atomic clock, is getting slower. I recommend this article be flagged as bias and or possibly remove all of the sections related to c decay because the c decay section does not mention ANY true fact of the c decay theory."

 * Did you write this yourself, or is is a big quote from someone else? You've put it in quotation marks.

 * As regards c-decay, at this time there is no evidence for this. The only reason c-decay is discussed at all is because creationists (some of them) have suggested this as a route for explaining the distance to stars (given that they assume a young universe).  If it weren't for them, we'd not be discussing it at all, because it isn't observed.  That some older measurements of it appear at odds with modern ones is hardly surprising given the technology we have at our disposal today.

 * I've no idea what that mechanical clocks story is all about - are you suggesting that our standard timepiece should be the orbit of the Earth around the Sun? Given that this isn't constant (for several reasons), this suggestion is ridiculous.  Wherever possible, we should use the best techniques our technology affords.  Creationists wanting a different value of c does not constitute a good reason for adopting less accurate technologies.  --Plumbago 08:40, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Right, there is no evidence for a change in the speed of light. Furthermore, for a change in the speed of light to account for the difference between 12,000 years and 13,000,000,000 years would require an extremely large change in the speed of light.  Furthermore, the light we are receiving from astronomical objects depict events that took much longer than 12,000 years to happen.  Red giants take a long time to evolve.  It takes a long time for a star to go Nova.  We see galaxies that are colliding, and that doesn't happen in 12,000 years.  Of course, the creationists will argue that the good Lord created red giants, stars about to go nova, and galaxies colliding with other galaxies, but that is completely non-scientific.  Bubba73 (talk), 16:54, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

 * The decay is exponential so obviouly this accounts for large change in c in past time that is no a very small change in c today. C decay theory states that all light slows, not just new light, this is why light from far away is the same speed as local light. C DECAY THEORY PREDECTS THAT THE SPEED OF LIGHT IS CONSTANT WITH AN ATOMIC CLOCK, BUT VARIES WITH DYNAMIC CLOCK. By dynamic clock they are referring to a human percevable second. So the theory is stating that in the past the number of atomic ticks in a percevable second was greater, and that this number is slowly decreasing. Obviously if you use atomic clock to measure atomic ticks you get no change, as expected. The speed of light was measured with percevable clocks (which include ANY mechanical clocks based on non-atomic movement, hour glass, resonators etc.) to be slowly decreasing until atomic clocks were invented, this is common knowledge. I do not agree with this c decay theory but the point is every reason why it was wrong as given here is completely incorrect and nothing to do with Setterfield's theory who is mentioned here a few times. Setterfields theory was designed to agree with all current observations and it does. It is named C decay because C decays in dynamic time, not atomic time. So the theory is basically stating that atomic orbits of electrons are getting faster and faster. It has been proven that faster orbitting electroncs do not effect speeds of non atomic occurances, including chemical reactions. This is what the theory is really about. The section should state nothing more than the speed of light, from all sources of the universe has been measured to be constant when using an atomic based clock. Everything else in the section is incorrect.

 * Yea, right. Bubba73 (talk), 04:14, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Stop being so cynical. Ratso 00:49, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

faster light?
I have two questions about this sentence in the article: "Big bang advocates have proposed cosmic inflation as well as light being much faster."

 * 1) wouldn't it be better to say that cosmic inflation is hte solution to the "horizon problem"?
 * 2) is it correct that big bang advocates propose that light was much faster? Bubba73 (talk), 21:41, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Inasmuch as there are those who propose Variable speed of light hypotheses and accept the expanding universe paradigm, there are Big Bang advocates who argue for a speed of light that was faster. However, I'm not sure they do this in the context of the horizon problem, though VSL will solve the horizon problem. --ScienceApologist 22:04, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Do they think that the speed of light could have been enough faster to make things that occurred 12,000 years ago appear to have been 12,000,000,000 years ago? (I doubt it) Bubba73 (talk), 22:20, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

 * You're absolutely right. --ScienceApologist 12:20, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Dead link
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

 * http://sunsite.nstu.nsk.su/sun/sunflash/november.1994/flashback/1107.sun-observer-feature.html
 * In Starlight problem on 2007-06-02 20:21:31, Socket Error: (10061, 'Connection refused')
 * In Starlight problem on 2007-06-03 14:30:01, Socket Error: (10061, 'Connection refused')
 * In Starlight problem on 2007-06-10 16:24:15, Socket Error: (10061, 'Connection refused')

-- Stwalkerbot 16:26, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Cleaning up Humphreys section
I've been working on this section in an effort to more clearly explain what Humphreys says in his book. That's difficult because I don't actually have it, I'm simply re-arranging the pre-existing text to make it flow better. I'd appreciate it if someone who is knowledgeable about the material could make sure I haven't clipped out something vital, or misrepresented it in some way.

Maury 21:21, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and I removed the paper. I read it several times to be sure, and it covers a topic completely different than Humphreys. They're talking about the expansion of a shock wave inside a black hole, there's nothing about a white hole or anything even remotely similar. Maury 12:40, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, in the article "Shock-wave cosmology inside a black hole", in the Abstract, the authors state, "Here the expanding FRW universe emerges be-hind a subluminous blast wave that explodes outward from the FRW center at the instant of the big bang. The total mass behind the shock decreases as the shock wave expands, and the entropy condition implies that the shock wave must weaken to the point where it settles down to an Oppenheimer–Snyder interface, (bounding a finite total mass), that eventually emerges from the white hole event horizon of an ambient Schwarzschild spacetime." In the final paragraph of the article, the authors also discuss the role of white holes in their cosmological model. You can read the article online - http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/100/20/11216

-Dan 70.101.100.222 12:55, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

In-transit creation
"Consequently, the in-transit theory is often rejected for theological reasons, as it suggests that God has created a "false history" of events that never took place."

How in the world, if God is omnipotent, could anyone presume what God would or could do? --aajacksoniv (talk) 00:50, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

 * Cited to Answers in Genesis (as recording opinion, so Reliable sources should be covered). - Eldereft (cont.) 16:29, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't see the answer to my question there.--aajacksoniv (talk) 16:15, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

 * But if God created the light beams already on their way, then that means none of the events we see in space (beyond a distance of 6,000 light-years) actually happened. It would mean that those exploding stars never exploded or existed; God merely painted pictures of these fictional events. It seems uncharacteristic of God to make illusions like this. God made our eyes to accurately probe the real universe; so we can trust that the events that we see in space really happened. For this reason, most creation scientists believe that light created in-transit is not the best way to respond to the distant starlight argument.
 * Others have claimed that God created the light en route, but this would mean that supernova 1987A never actually happened, but rather that God created the image of the exploding star en route to Earth. Moreover, it would mean that the progenitor star never actually existed even though we have been able to see its image throughout time. While some ‘appearance of age’ is essential in a supernaturally created universe where things were created functionally mature, would God create the image of a star that never actually existed, or a supernova that never happened? Perhaps we cannot completely eliminate this possibility, but it nonetheless seems a remarkably uncharacteristic act for the God of the Bible.
 * It is hardly Thomas Aquinas, so feel free to dig up some better sources. - Eldereft (cont.) 19:07, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Physical nonsense
The entire premise of this article is based on physical nonsense. The "speed of light" is not a fundamental constant of physics, as many nonphysicists believe it to be. It is merely a conversion factor that relates conventional units of time and distance (the "meter" and the "second"). In fact, the speed of light is no longer measured. In SI units it is defined as 299792458 meters/second; the meter is no longer defined by the distance between two lines scratched onto a platinum-iridium bar stored in a vault in Paris; it is defined as 1/299792458 of the distance that light travels in vacuuo in one SI second. The number 299792458 meters/second is an absolute constant and by definition does not change over time.

Now it is true that at one time the speed of light was measured relative to the Paris artifactual meter, and it is possible that the speed of light might change if that were still the definition of the meter. There is no evidence that this is the case and strong evidence against it. But modern physics would not regard any such variation as a "change in the speed of light," but rather as a change in the length of the above-mentioned Paris artifactual meter.

In any case, such a variation would not be due to a "change in the speed of light," but instead due to a change in one or more of the actual fundamental constants of physics, all of which are dimensionless. The two that are most likely to be important are the fine structure constant and the ratio of electron to proton mass, both of which could affect the length of the above-mentioned artifactual meter.

Unfortunately for "speed of light changing" enthusiasts, there is direct evidence from various sources that there have been no significant variations in these constants for hundreds of millions and even billions of years. Bill Jefferys (talk) 13:36, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

 * Hi Bill. Any chance that you can try to integrate these points (with sources) into the article?  Though the article does state in the lead that its subject is pseudoscience (as of an edit of mine yesterday), the main body currently presents the so-called "creationist cosmologies" without much comment to this effect.  Your points would help here, so please edit away!  Cheers, --P LUMBAGO  14:34, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

 * Bill, you are clearly informed on this issue. With reliable sources cited (per Plumbago's comment above), and a neutral point of view, you could make some good contributions. Colin MacLaurin (talk) 10:46, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

title: Talk:Starlight problem


text:
Wikipedia talk:Pages needing attention/Computer science

Reverted changes by 131.230.133.185
I reverted changes by User:131.230.133.185 to this page for the following reasons:
 * These changes lost the most recent changes made to the page
 * Changes were made to comments signed by other users, but leaving the signatures, making it seem that users said things they didn't
 * The reason given for the changes was bogus, in fact the page says:
 * If you think that an article has been fixed to be Wikipedia average but you are not sure, then make a comment underneath the article's listing on this page so that someone else can doublecheck your perception that the article is Wikipedia average.

 * The edit summary said that talk pages were a more appropriate place for the content, but there was no indication that the content had been moved to a talk page.
 * —PrologFan {Talk} 17:44, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Example code is incorrect http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Busy_waiting
The example code for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Busy_waiting is incorrect and unsafe. See the Talk page there. (I hope I am posting this to the right place.) Jive Dadson (talk) 07:49, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Incorrect discussion and code example in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volatile_variable
The discussion and example code for [] are incorrect. See the Talk page there. Jive Dadson (talk) 07:59, 19 August 2012 (UTC)