text:
Talk:Botulinum toxin

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Wyattlillie. Peer reviewers: ATran34614.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 16:09, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Untitled
Sorry, but there is a chembox problem as the chemical for botox isn't verified yet, how do i verify them? (mahamed90) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahamed90 (talk • contribs) 19:53, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Poison or medication?
This article treats the botulinum toxin more as the medication Botox(tm) than possibly the most lethal poison on earth. I suggest replacing/extending the info box with toxicity information and classification from the toxic point of view. I would also restructure the article, moving the chapters regarding toxicity and working mechanism more to the top. Chapters 'therapeutic research' and 'manufacturers' should be moved into 'medical uses' and below 'Biochemical mechanism of toxicity'. Misiu mp (talk) 06:25, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Permanent paralysis?
The article does not state whether the paralysis is temporary or permanent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.202.1.229 (talk) 18:57, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Of what I understand the damage to synapses is permanent. Recovery is made through creation of new neural connections, which is a rather long process. Misiu mp (talk) 06:28, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Cooking?
According to the article, The toxin itself is rapidly destroyed by heat, such as in thorough cooking.[14] However, the spores which produce the toxin are heat-tolerant and will survive boiling at 100 degrees Celsius for an extended period of time.

So, that begs the question: how does one canning food, etc., be assured that it is safe? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.89.178.131 (talk) 08:14, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

 * If you can food at standard pressure using a boiling water bath (therefore, 100 degrees C), the pH of the food must be low enough to prevent botulinum growth, because the temperature alone isn't high enough to kill the spores. For fruit, the pH is naturally low enough.  Vegetables must be either acidified/pickled, or else they must be canned using pressure to attain higher temperatures.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.190.15.204 (talk) 05:11, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

The C. botulinum spores are killed in the canning process because increased pressure is applied, allowing boiling to occur at a higher temperature. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.105.209.173 (talk) 09:05, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Only the last big epidemy in Sweden was caused by canned ham which was not prepared with a small dose of nitrite (very small) and C. botulinum had survived canning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.176.237.2 (talk) 14:01, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

However, the spores which produce the toxin.... Spores do not produce toxins! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.169.100.145 (talk) 10:19, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

It might be worth noting the spores will not 'hatch' in an oxygen environment. So boiling will destroy the toxin, and the spores remaining are harmless unless allowed to 'hatch'. Jokem (talk) 20:37, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

 * I was thinking the same thing. I just addressed this in the article. --Saaga (talk) 19:10, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

In regards to sausage comment
Hi. I would suggest you look into the history of this naming convention. It has nothing to do with the shape but rather to do with the fact that the initial outbreaks which were in the region of Germany, not Belgium were linked to the blood sausages which were quite popular at the time. The clinical description of the disease was first done by Justinus Kerner. I recommend reading "Historical notes on botulism, Clostridium botulinum, botulinum toxin, and the idea of the therapeutic use of the toxin" by Frank J. Erbguth, Movement Disorders vol 19 issue S8.

Growing in sausages/meat vs. sausage-shaped
There is a dispute about why this bacterium is called botulinum. I have moved the part of article recently added by User: 86.150.47.14 to here.

"The author of this page continually revises any alterations that I make. This is his/her right to do so, of course, but I am disappointed by his/her dogmatism. Much of the above paragraph is nothing more than opinion, and is not referenced anywhere. Perhaps, with this introduction, s/he will permit my alternative to stand? The name of the bacterium is Clostridium botulinum. Literally: the sausage clostridium. While it is true that the bacterium has been isolated from poorly preserved meat products, the first recorded example of this was in the late 19th century from ham served at a street party in Belgium; not Canadian ham; not sausages. Also, in recent years, cases have been reported in the medical press of clinical botulism caused by imperfectly preserved yoghourt, green beans, mushrooms, and even from native honey. The point is, the bacterium needs a suitable source of food, and an anaerobic atmosphere in which to grow: it does not exclusively require 'meaty' media. In the early days of bacteriology, naming bacterial species was tricky. They had no chemical techniques for serotyping, so bacteria were often described by visible physical characteristics. An example would be Staphylococcus aureus (lit: golden bunch of grapes) or Staph. albus (white bunch of grapes). The 'bunch of grapes' bit refers to the fact that these cocci clump together, and when viewed under the microscope, vaguely resemble that fruit. Ultimately, these two species were distinguished by the different colours of the colonies of billions of bacteria when grown in culture. Aureus = bright yellow; albus = white. I suggest (for about the tenth time) that the name for C. botulinum actually derives from the rod-shape of the Clostridium bacterium. Viewed under the microscope these bacteria appear like tiny, curved rods - not unlike little sausages - hence Clostridium botulinum: the Clostridium that looks like a sausage."

Would somebody who knows more about this than me (nothing) please help clear this up. Thanks.Mmoneypenny 12:30, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

E.Van Ermengem discovered the organism Cl. botulinum in 1895 after 34 Belgian citizens had become ill following the ingestion of salted ham, true, (Atlas of Cosmetic Surgery, p291, published by Saunders 2002) but the disease had been recognised well prior to this. An outbreak in 1793 in Wildebad, Germany was associated with the eating of contaminated sausages and it was at this time the clinical disease was called botulism, although it was also called Kerner's disease for a time after the health official who compiled the reports of this particular outbreak.

Basic undergraduate microbiology teaches the classification of bacteria into four categories according to staining characteristics (Gram positive or Gram negative) and organism shape (coccus, or round-shaped, and bacillus, or rod-shaped). Hence, lots of different bacteria are rod-shaped and thus plausibly sausage-shaped: e.g. corynebacteria (diphtheria), actinomyces, bacillus anthracis (anthrax), listeria, and of course the clostridia, all rod-shaped, of which there are over 60 species including Cl. botulinum.

So, aside from the historic reality that this disease botulism was named well before the organism was identified, it would in any case not have made sense to identify a species of clostridium using a morphological descriptor that is in fact more generic than the genus, since all clostridia and a great number of other bacteria are, if you like, sausage-shaped. Of course, if the gratuitous observation can be forgiven, those of a Freudian bent might think of another way to allude to a rod-shaped structure. So, Mmoneypenny, congratulations on your lateral thinking, but in this case: "no cigar".Drpeachy (talk) 14:52, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Oral poisoning and digestion
What is the oral LD50? I would think that most of the toxin would be destroyed by proteinases in the stomach if swallowed. Icek 19:35, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I have to disagree. BoTx holotoxin is quite stable under most conditions and is apparently engineered to pass through the stomach and escape into the blood via the intestinal wall. There have been numerous studies of this phenomenon, not to mention that the oral route is the most common route of intoxination. The di-chain toxin is covered in small protein molecules, sometimes referred to as agglutinins. Some people believe these proteins are designed to be shed during entry into the digestive tract. I'm going to edit this article with footnotes when I get some time. God forbid that an incident occur and the news media use this page the way it is.Jdnicholson 21:44, 23 September 2007 (UTC)jdnicholson

 * Thanks for the answer. I just discovered that the German article also says that there are protective proteins which prevent digestion in the stomach and further states that the complex of the toxin proper and the protective proteins dissociates at neutral pH. Icek 21:54, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Why grouped under Chemical Warfare?
What's the point in putting that huge "Chemical Warfare" banner at the top of the page? Based on the contents of the article, it seems like it's never actually been developed into a mass-destruction weapon. Chlorine, for example, has no such banner, even though it has been and is much more likely to be used as such. Potential use as a weapon seems to me to be of little importance relative to the other aspects of the toxin presented in the article. Anon, Fri Jun 8 14:25:15 EDT 2007
 * I would have to agree with that - there is no use at all for the botulinum toxin as a part of WMD. If you let the solvent go into the bottle too quickly, it denatures the botulinum protein - it is very delicate. The clostridium bacterium, on the other hand, would and does kill people, but only as the result of contamination of food, and it is entirely unsuitable for warfare. The "tests" in Manchuria were using the bacterium, not the purified extract of toxin. docboat 23:58, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree as well. It might belong in the category, but it certainly doesn't need the chemical warfare template.  --Iknowyourider (talk) 14:41, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The US and UK experimented with botulinus toxin, with the biological (not chemical) agent designation X, but found it not generally viable as a weapon. There were tests at Horn Island in the Gulf of Mexico. It remained of interest for clandestine use; IIRC, it was considered for assassinating Castro by the CIA. Hcberkowitz 23:25, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Indeed it was -- see Botulinum_toxin and also The_Cuban_Project. As for the article itself -- any objections at all to me pulling the chemical warfare vert infobox?  --Iknowyourider (t c) 23:31, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if it is true, but I was told that this is the stuff Saddam used on the Kurdish people before the first Gulf war.
 * Apparently botulinum toxin was produced at fort detrick during the second world war after a request by the british. ... come to think of it I should check to see if that's in the article. cyclosarin 11:38, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I think China tried to develop aerosolized botulinum weapons, hence the US Army's development of the antitoxin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.105.209.173 (talk) 09:10, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Botulinum has a rich military history. The United States tried for nearly 30 years to weaponize it. If it were not for Ed Shantz and others at then Camp Detrick, we would not know very much about this toxin. The first medical use of BoTox was credited to research efforts by the US Army and Dr. Shantz's willingness to share samples of the toxin with nonmilitary researchers. Nonetheless, I agree that today it is far more of a medical topic than a biological (or chemical) warfare topic. —Reid Kirby 22:42, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

If you check out a youtube video -"top ten deadliest poisons know to humanity" This actually comes up as number one. One tablespoon of the stuff has the potential to kill millions of people if allowed to spread. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.92.219.6 (talk) 22:29, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to see that banner on top again...but selling poison was the best business ever since, right? (Btw I don't know how many Botox marketing guys are posting here, probably a lot) --178.197.227.86 (talk) 16:07, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Proposal to archive some of these entries
This talk page is rather long. I think some of the discussions need to be archived. I read through WP:ARCHIVE; however, I didn't see any standard criteria for determining what to archive. Discussions that haven't been active for a year or more, maybe? Please give thoughts. --Iknowyourider (talk) 14:40, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm just going to take care of this myself. Right now.--Iknowyourider (t c) 18:24, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Done!--Iknowyourider (t c) 18:29, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Different Types of Botox
I think that this article may benefit from a section discussing the different types of Botox (A vs B) and the efficacy of each. Wiki emma johnson (talk) 06:10, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Inconsistancies/errors in article
The second sentence in the article states:

"It is the most toxic protein known[1][2] with an LD50 of roughly 0.005-0.05 µg/kg."

The second paragraph under "Chemical overview and lethality" states:

"It is the most acutely toxic substance known, with a median lethal dose of about 1 ng/kg (intravenously)[9] meaning one teaspoon can kill 1.2 billion people."

My first point: LD50 means median lethal dose. So, which is correct: 1ng/kg or 5-50 ng/kg? Is the first reference to oral dose?

My second point: (If my calculations are correct) One teaspoon of toxin is about 5cc, which is somewhere near 5g. Divide that by 1.2 billion people and you get about 4 ng per person. Which would achieve the ld50 of a 4 kg newborn. So, it seems that means that if 1.2 billion 4 kg infants were injected with equal shares of a teaspoon of toxin, half of them would die, assuming ld50 of 1 ng/kg. I would think that the average adult would be 70-80 kg.

Timalleman (talk) 19:35, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Any such analogies ("Four pounds could kill every human on the planet . . .") are both noninformative and downright silly. These are inflammatory "gee-whiz" comments, and do not help to educate or to inform. It's simpler to just not include them, and stick to the facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.55.200.20 (talk • contribs)

Molecular Complexity
I don't know where else to ask this, so this seemed best suited. Discounting chained alloys and related molecules for example; is Botulinum Toxin among the most complex indivisible molecules? That is, a molecule that, if it were to be spliced in any manner, would no longer contain the properties of the molecule as a whole. DNA would obviously not count in this manner, as resequencing would merit an acceptable chromosome configuration, albeit applicable to a different "organism" blueprint.

What are some of the most complex indivisible organic molecules?-TAz69x (talk) 10:10, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Advantage for the bacterium?
Jdnicholson wrote, s.v. "Oral poisoning and digestion,"

"BoTx holotoxin is quite stable under most conditions and is apparently engineered to pass through the stomach and escape into the blood via the intestinal wall. There have been numerous studies of this phenomenon, not to mention that the oral route is the most common route of intoxination. The di-chain toxin is covered in small protein molecules, sometimes referred to as agglutinins.  Some people believe these proteins are designed to be shed during entry into the digestive tract."

These references to apparent engineering and design raise the question of what benefit the toxin actually provides to the bacterium itself. Is it this bug's ordinary life cycle to kill its hosts with the toxin, grow by feeding on the cadaver, sporulate when the acidity gets too high or the body disintegrates enough to admit oxygen, and remain as spores until ingested again? If so, this bacterium is an outright predator. What is its ordinary prey? Hieronymus Illinensis (talk) 01:17, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

This page looks horrible right now, with ref tags and vandalism in some places. Please clean it up--68.193.135.139 (talk) 04:25, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Nonsensical statement in intro
OK, I (neurologist) thought I'd start to deal with this. First para: "Despite the toxicity of some of the strains, humans are immune to others, and hence these can be used in small doses to treat muscle spasms" This statement makes no sense: If humans were immune to "some strains", the treatment with these wouldn't work. Humans are *not* immune to "some strains" of botulinum toxin and the citation (link to a commercial website) does not relate to this claim at all. It seems someone else will have to take over cleaning this mess up (the section on medical applications in particular is bad), since it's no use trying to improve an article only to see the edits taken off again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.79.161.90 (talk) 22:52, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree. I, too, was confused this statement when I first read this article, however I am not an expert on the subject. Please do not be discouraged by the reversion of your edits, sometimes some editors get overly zealous. I can only speak for myself, but I think Wikipedia can only profit from editors who are experts or professionals in some field. However, edits from users without an account are often treated with some scepticism because I can tell you from experience that about 80% of those are vandalism, and most of the remaining 20% are not very qualified. In your case, neither was the case, so I would appreciate it very much if you did not leave the project but create an account and continue to help improve the project and especially this article.
 * The sentence you criticised does in fact cite a commercial website which does not even back the statement, so I removed it and added . Maybe that is a good starting point for fixing the statement. Sometimes Wikipedia can be quite bureaucratic ;-)
 * — Shinryuu (talk) 07:25, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I would like to add to this: at current, the section on Muscle Spasms is terrifically under-developed, awkward, etc. "The acceptance of BTX-A use for the treatment of muscle pain disorders is growing, with approvals pending in many European countries and studies on headaches (including migraine), pro static symptoms, asthma, obesity and many other possible indications are ongoing. Problem in writing etc." I'm going to go ahead and clean it up, a bit, but it's basically a stub, right now. It should be expanded or removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.72.167.41 (talk) 19:57, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Kim Kardashian? Really?
Why is Kim Kardashian--a no-talent, reality show nobody, the worst type of modern-day "celebrity"--mentioned in a scientific article like this one? Lots of celebrities could be named, but there is no need to name any of them, LEAST of all a reality "star." Her name should be removed. Reality "stars" are jokes. It degrades the dignity of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.38.227.63 (talk) 09:30, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

 * As much as I agree on keeping celebrities out of scientific articles, this one looks currently more like a commercial article. Also, flaming like that degrades the dignity too. Misiu mp (talk) 06:37, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

A better celebrity to write about would definitely be the UK's Anne Robinson. The changes it made to her were phenomenal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.113.81.71 (talk) 07:16, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Unverifiable reference
This reference is not openly verifiable because it requires a membership/log in

Naumann M, So Y, Argoff CE, et al. (May 2008). "Assessment: Botulinum neurotoxin in the treatment of autonomic disorders and pain (an evidence-based review): report of the Therapeutics and Technology Assessment Subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology". Neurology 70 (19): 1707–14. doi:10.1212/01.wnl.0000311390.87642.d8. . http://www.neurology.org/cgi/pmidlookup?view=long&pmid=18458231.

Attys (talk) 01:48, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

 * The referenced source is verifiable. WP:VERIFIABILITY does not require that sources be free to be considered valid. See WP:SOURCEACCESS.
 * El piel (talk) 22:37, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

LD50 botulinum D
I found contradicting sources about the ld50 of botulinum D elsewhere on wikipedia. Went out to look at the source, but the numbers are no where to be found, so I added a "citation needed" tag. Ogtfo (talk) 18:12, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

For control of muscle spasms (truth)
Hi, I didnt know where else to place this statement besides wiki, and I just wanted to share with anyone who cares that this is not just a toxin, but can be used as a medication.

Over a year ago I recieved a spinal tap (LP) that did much neurological damage as well as disc irritation and required a blood patch, very horrible, after this I began having muscle spasms that did last for 13 months. I feel its important to also inform you that I was/still currently AM serving in the United States Navy and this did serious damage to my potential career in the military which is coming to a graceful close. My peers and superiors had no idea of the horrendous pain I went through for those 13 months and the severe depression that I went through and am still going through, I am only 21 years old but went from energetic and lively to crippled and lethargic, literally overnight. I feel its also important to annotate that the spinal tap was during the first week of April (yes the devil's month) but the months before that I had been suffering from sickness after sickness and was diagnosed with Mono in mid March of that year. Following the LP the muscle spasms took control of my life and my career and I began to be unable to serve and was scrutinized and preparing myself for possible separation. I went through medical tests, and blood tests, MRI's, physical exams, pain management, and was on benzo's for atleast 10 months out of those 13. In may of the following year I became completely detached from reality due to severe chronic pain, it was everyday and didnt go away. Ever. Chronic pain changes the way your brain works, and even the chemicals it releases (or doesnt release) and I fell into a deep depression, one in which I dont even fully remember that day at all or what I said to someone in the smoke pit, but it was perceived as 'suicidal' and I was rushed to medical for an evaluation and was given a mental health evaluation that same day.

Mental health gave me a consult to see a neurologist in the Naval Hospital right next door. The following week I met a neurologist who was very verrry adamant in helping me overcome this pain and depression. During the same visit, I began to have one of the worst back spasms of my entire life right there infront of him, I had my shirt removed and I was laying on my stomach and he stood over me and told me about how my back muscles were contorting and twisting and shaking, it was a very painful experience for anyone who has never experienced SEVERE muscle spasms. He literally said "Your back was lighting up like a Christmas tree". He decided that he would NOT wait until a follow up appointment and asked me if I wanted to try a Botox treatment in my back muscles, like any other American that had heard about Botox, I was confused. Of course we have all seen and or heard about it on TV and the celebrities and whatnot, but it is actually used to treat muscle spasms. I was initially reluctant because in my mind, this pain and spasticity had all started after the LP, which is essentially getting a needle stuck in your back, it didnt make sense for me to solve the problem of getting a needle stuck in my back by getting more needles in my back. But about 15 seconds into the spasm I decided, I WILL TAKE ANYTHING RIGHT NOW. Because thats how pain works, your brain says "get rid of this right now". I stand here today (yes I can stand now, all by myself and pain free) still a Sailor because 5 days after those injections, I felt some things I had not felt in quite some time. For 1 Genuine HAPPINESS! And the satisfaction and gratitude for my own life. 2 a pain free existance.

Later it was found out that I have a very rare type of auto-immune disease known as "Stiff Person Syndrome" (yes that is the real name of it). I was a textbook case, and Im still going through some of the mid stages of it....at 21 years old... but most of the pain is gone and has not returned, the thing is this is supposed to only last for 3-4 months but Im loving every minute of my life right now, I know this was long winded but thank you for reading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.9.119.87 (talk) 03:06, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

 * This is indeed very insteresting, thanks for sharing. Did you try a therapy with eating and applying capsaicin before your botox therapy? Just a note: There are usually - if not always - several solutions for the same problem. --178.197.227.86 (talk) 16:18, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Is this an Allergan commercial for Botox?
Botox is a TRADE NAME and wikipedia should not be listing one trade name without listing others. An encyclopedia article should refer to a substance by its common name and not one company's trade name. I have updated the last sentence in the first paragraph to represent all 4 commercial forms of the toxin.

Please update this article in other sections so it is not promoting one company's trade name. All 4 botulinum toxins (type A and B) are approved for use in cervical dystonia and all 3 "type A" are used for cosmetic purposes.

See: http://www.bcbsms.com/com/bcbsms/apps/PolicySearch/views/ViewPolicy.php?&noprint=yes&path=/policy/emed/BotulinumToxin.html Jim Perry, Lewes, Delaware (Jim892) (talk) 16:00, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Under which supervision operates Allergan Inc.?
Since botox is the most dangerous and toxic compound on earth I'd like to know which agency supervises the production of Botox, and which laws do apply. It should be treated the same as any other production of chemical weapons. --178.197.227.86 (talk) 16:03, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Dubious - most acutely toxic substance
The polonium article seems to indicate that 50 nanograms is enough to kill the average adult, while the this article lists botulinum's toxicity as 1.3-2.1 nanogram/kg, which would presumably be anywhere from 50-200 grams for typical adults.

I think this is close enough to call the "most" into question.

Attys (talk) 07:03, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Your maths is incorrect by orders of magnitude. The two poisons are very close in LD50.

Why not edit to say "is among the most toxic substances known"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.65.198.150 (talk) 01:09, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

 * Being a source of ionising radiation such as polonium should not (in my opinion) even be classified as 'toxicity' in the same sense as botulinum because most (by quantity) of the harmful effects are as a result of the ionising radiation increasing the chance of their occurrence rather than actually being the cause of the occurrence, meaning that for an accurate comparison the LD50 of polonium required must be at the level where it causes death within the same time scale as the action of the botulinum toxin lethal dosage rather than a comparison where the polonium would require a much longer maximum 30-50 days of radioactive decay within the body beforehand, especially when considering the possibility of treatment, such as chelating agents and botulinum antitoxins for polonium and botulinum toxins respectively. 202.89.189.7 (talk) 16:03, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Could also say "is the most acutely lethal toxin known" as Polonium is not a toxin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.211.9.158 (talk) 19:14, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

 * Yes, seems ok, this is true, but also before the modification (except for radioactive) and this edit seemed unnecessary. comp.arch (talk) 10:58, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Split out botulinum treatment
I find this article trips over itself jumping between information about botulinum itself and botulinum as a therapeutic agent. We end up with an article where it's hard to even find a statement of the medical presentation of botulism poisoning.

The first occurrence of the string "symptom" is found in the following sentence:

Since then, several randomized control trials have shown botulinum toxin type A to improve headache symptoms and quality of life when used prophylactically for patients with chronic migraine who exhibit headache characteristics consistent with: pressure perceived from outside source, shorter total duration of chronic migraines (<30 years), "detoxification" of patients with coexisting chronic daily headache due to medication overuse, and no current history of other preventive headache medications.

As an added benefit, the talk page discussion about whether Kim K. warrants mention could transpire on a completely different talk page, where chemists fear to tread. — MaxEnt 23:47, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

The following book citation moved here
… because it is redundant to a full, verifiable, high quality source (Curr Op Pharmacol) already appearing, in supporting a very general opening statement, and because it is unverifiable as it appears, for missing citation fields (page numbers, et al.). It is further incomplete in not listing the books editor (Thomas Proft, of the University of Auckland, New Zealand), and may prove to be lower quality source. Its appearance as an incomplete source inserted to support the lede opening sentence makes it suspicious, and I suggest it should be returned to the end of that sentence only after it is verified, and found necessary. Le Prof 71.239.87.100 (talk) 17:43, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Unreferenced statement minimizing risk removed to Talk
The following statement appeared without a citation: It is removed until the editor providing it can provide a substantive, respected, up-to-date source that says precisely this. Not the Baylor dermatology pages, or other web sources, please. It is unconscionable to indicate a Black Box warning label, then to throw in such obfuscating unsourced information as this. Yes, the truth of the situation is subtle. All the more reason to state it accurately. 71.239.87.100 (talk) 19:30, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * "At the extremely low doses used medicinally, botulinum toxin has a very low degree of human and animal toxicity."

 * Sorry, just cannot leave this one in either, without a better source than a web page, to lead a section ending with reports of deaths and black box warning (ref markup removed):
 * "Side effects, which are minor and temporary,[ ref name=bcm ]
 * Leprof 7272 (talk) 22:00, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

 * Here's another that cannot stay, for lack of referencing, and of insufficient statistical power to draw any therapeutic conlusion whatsoever (!):
 * " While no data exists on the medical use of botulin A (botulinum toxin) during breastfeeding, one infant was safely breastfed during maternal botulism and no botulinum toxin was detectable in the mother's milk or infant."
 * Unbelievable. Leprof 7272 (talk) 23:15, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

 * Here is one moved here because it is WP:OR, and conflicts with the opening statement (which says pregnant and lactating individuals should consult their physicians). We can't have it both ways, suggesting only the experts should dispense medical advice, then trying to sneak an opinion in now and again:
 * "the National Library of Medicine LactMed Drugs and Lactation Database suggests that no special precautions are required" [ ref name="test" ] Botulin A – National Library of Medicine LactMed Database ], preceded by "Since the doses used medically are far lower than those that cause botulism,"
 * The wording "suggests" makes this OR, and it has to be made into a quote (to say what it says, not interpret what it might say/suggest) or it can be omitted, which I leave to the editors most trained to decide. (The "Since…" preface is also problematic, because it is unclear what the source is saying, versus what the editor is interpreting.) If the source is the authority, clearly—if "The NLM LMDLD highlights that dosing is far below levels of toxin required too cause botulism and concludes that no precautions are required for lactating mothers, citing…"—then this needs to be said, and the authority, not a database, needs to be cited here. This should be clear with regard to medical information offered to pregnant and lactating patients.
 * Cheers. Leprof 7272 (talk) 23:36, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Botulinum toxin --why content has been removed
hello, I added content on this page but WAS removed, I did not understood the reason please let me know that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jainsuchita7 (talk • contribs) 04:36, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Page Organization
Hi all! I think the organization of this page is a bit odd. Currently the headings are: So we talk about how it's used and what can go wrong before any section on what botulinum toxin actually is. I'd propose instead we change it to: Does anyone have any thoughts or objections? Ajpolino (talk) 03:26, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Uses
 * 2) Adverse Effects
 * 3) Mechanism of Action
 * 4) History
 * 5) Society and Culture
 * 6) Research
 * 1) Structure
 * 2) Mechanism
 * 3) Uses
 * 4) Adverse Effects (though maybe this could go under "uses")
 * 5) History
 * 6) Society and Culture
 * 7) Research
 * For background/similar articles, see Tetanus toxin and Pertussis toxin. Or the fairly busy article Hemoglobin.Ajpolino (talk) 03:29, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Changes to uses section
Hi folks! I went through the uses section in an effort to make it readable prose rather than a list. In general, I tried to remove primary refs that weren't necessary, clarify jargon which would be incomprehensible to readers without M.D.s, and reorganize a bit so the section reads a bit more smoothly.

Also I removed "chronic migraine" from the list of treatable conditions since one of the refs specifically does not recommend botulinum toxin for treatment of migraine (here).

I also merged the short pediatric section into the rest.

The section could still use a reference update (it looks like it was written around 2005, and all the refs are from around then. I replaced a couple where I stumbled upon more recent ones. The section looks a lot shorter, but I think you'll find all the info is still there. If anyone objects, i'd be happy to talk about it! Ajpolino (talk) 04:03, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

California canning industry comment
"The California canning industry was thereby preserved" - I see what you did there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.197.109.5 (talk) 16:50, 17 July 2017 (UTC) That comment was an a-Mason stroke of genius.--70.123.9.45 (talk) 01:28, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Botulinum toxin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110626185759/http://agn.client.shareholder.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=587234 to http://agn.client.shareholder.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=587234

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:21, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Chemistry
Hi, I don't think that there is enough biochemistry in this article. Specifically, facts/data. I've taken a couple of minutes and done a bit of data analysis on the Bot A protein (from https://www.drugbank.ca/drugs/DB00083). I think it would be useful to add a paragraph with some of the facts about the chemistry. The primary structure is found in the above mentioned page, and since it has 1274 amino acids, I'll include it at the end of this post, although I doubt if it would be useful here. Of course, the "factual" data when considering proteins isn't as universal as, say, the data for methane or benzene which have definite chemical compositions and shapes. (see secondary and tertiary protein structure, see also mutation (since it's likely (I don't know the specifics here) that one or more of the amino acids vary from Bot A to Bot A source, which makes Bot A toxin a family of closely related chemical sequences (and then there's 2° & 3° structure...). First MW is given in the box for "Bontoxilysin" but NOWHERE in the article is the relationship between Botox A and this compound referred to nor explained - sad and sloppy. The above reference claims ave. MW is 149322.7 Da (I don't know anyone who routinely uses g/mol for proteins anymore...) Here's the breakdown of the AA distribution: Alanine (A) 51; Arginine (R) 42; Asparagine (N) 137; Aspartic Acid (D) 78; Cysteine (C) 9; Glutamic Acid (E) 74; Glutamine (Q) 39; Glycine (G)  59; Histidine (H)  12; Isoleucine (I)  118; Leucine (L)  111; Lysine (K)  101; Methionine (M)  22; Phenylalanine (F)  70; Proline (P)  37; Serine (S)  83; Threonine (T)  71; Tryptophan (W)  15; Tyrosine (Y) 74; Valine (V) 71; (letters in parentheses are a standard code for the respective AA). There's other important information, for instance, what the "pocket" (pockets?) looks like for the enzymatic activity, (what the nerve binding zone looks like), typical residence time, metabolic degradation pathway(s), etc.) Below (using the code I provided above) is the 1274 amino acids in sequence order. MPFVNKQFNYKDPVNGVDIAYIKIPNVGQMQPVKAFKIHNKIWVIPERDTFTNPEEGDLN PPPEAKQVPVSYYDSTYLSTDNEKDNYLKGVTKLFERIYSTDLGRMLLTSIVRGIPFWGG STIDTELKVIDTNCINVIQPDGSYRSEELNLVIIGPSADIIQFECKSFGHEVLNLTRNGY GSTQYIRFSPDFTFGFEESLEVDTNPLLGAGKFATDPAVTLAHELIHAGHRLYGIAINPN RVFKVNTNAYYEMSGLEVSFEELRTFGGHDAKFIDSLQENEFRLYYYNKFKDIASTLNKA KSIVGTTASLQYMKNVFKEKYLLSEDTSGKFSVDKLKFDKLYKMLTEIYTEDNFVKFFKV LNRKTYLNFDKAVFKINIVPKVNYTIYDGFNLRNTNLAANFNGQNTEINNMNFTKLKNFT GLFEFYKLLCVRGIITSKTKSLDKGYNKALNDLCIKVNNWDLFFSPSEDNFTNDLNKGEE ITSDTNIEAAEENISLDLIQQYYLTFNFDNEPENISIENLSSDIIGQLELMPNIERFPNG KKYELDKYTMFHYLRAQEFEHGKSRIALTNSVNEALLNPSRVYTFFSSDYVKKVNKATEA AMFLGWVEQLVYDFTDETSEVSTTDKIADITIIIPYIGPALNIGNMLYKDDFVGALIFSG AVILLEFIPEIAIPVLGTFALVSYIANKVLTVQTIDNALSKRNEKWDEVYKYIVTNWLAK VNTQIDLIRKKMKEALENQAEATKAIINYQYNQYTEEEKNNINFNIDDLSSKLNESINKA MININKFLNQCSVSYLMNSMIPYGVKRLEDFDASLKDALLKYIYDNRGTLIGQVDRLKDK VNNTLSTDIPFQLSKYVDNQRLLSTFTEYIKNIINTSILNLRYESNHLIDLSRYASKINI GSKVNFDPIDKNQIQLFNLESSKIEVILKNAIVYNSMYENFSTSFWIRIPKYFNSISLNN EYTIINCMENNSGWKVSLNYGEIIWTLQDTQEIKQRVVFKYSQMINISDYINRWIFVTIT NNRLNNSKIYINGRLIDQKPISNLGNIHASNNIMFKLDGCRDTHRYIWIKYFNLFDKELN EKEIKDLYDNQSNSGILKDFWGDYLQYDKPYYMLNLYDPNKYVDVNNVGIRGYMYLKGPR GSVMTTNIYLNSSLYRGTKFIIKKYASGNKDNIVRNNDRVYINVVVKNKEYRLATNASQA GVEKILSALEIPDVGNLSQVVVMKSKNDQGITNKCKMNLQDNNGNDIGFIGFHQFNNIAK LVASNWYNRQIERSSRTLGCSWEFIPVDDGWGERPL again, this is all available on the page I referenced at the start.(as of 10/31/2017). note: the article claims that the above consists of two primary chains, so the above is (part of) the 2° structure. I don't know where the sequence breaks. 71.31.144.146 (talk) 01:13, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

NFPA 704
Can someone please add an NFPA 704 diamond (if allowed)? ScRiptED (talk) 18:06, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Fonterra Botulism Scandal
The section "History" should have the infamous Fonterra Botulism Scandal. Seeker220 (talk) 18:59, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Improper link to research paper
Hi, I've removed a sentence about Botulinum toxin as a treatment for depression as it was referenced to a website, botoxresearch.org; I cannot find any sign of a reputable organisation using this website name (by Googling) and the entire site is a copy of an article from Iran J Public Health 46:982-984. If the article is relevant it should be cited properly for what it is, not hidden behind a website. It's just plain weird to have a website that is nothing but an article. Who would create such a thing, and how does one find such a thing? I'm also not 100% convinced it's correct to include it here. We are a tertiary source, not a secondary, and we should ideally be quoting from people who've reviewed the literature, not delving deep into primary literature and assessing its quality ourselves. Elemimele (talk) 19:05, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Name change to Botox
Should the title of the page be changed to botox, because it is the most familiar and popular name of it.? Sangsangaplaz (talk) 13:50, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Research Process and Methodology - SP24 - Sect 201 - Thu
— Assignment last updated by Xc1181 (talk) 21:26, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Botulinum toxin


text:
You Can't Always Get What You Want

"You Can't Always Get What You Want" is a song by the English rock band the Rolling Stones from their 1969 album Let It Bleed. Written by Mick Jagger and Keith Richards, it was named as the 100th greatest song of all time by Rolling Stone magazine in its 2004 list of the "500 Greatest Songs of All Time" before dropping a place the following year.

Composition and recording
Jagger commented on the song's beginnings: "'You Can't Always Get What You Want' was something I just played on the acoustic guitar—one of those bedroom songs. It proved to be quite difficult to record because Charlie couldn't play the groove and so Jimmy Miller had to play the drums. I'd also had this idea of having a choir, probably a gospel choir, on the track, but there wasn't one around at that point. Jack Nitzsche, or somebody, said that we could get the London Bach Choir and we said, 'That will be a laugh.'"

"You Can't Always Get What You Want" was composed in the key of C major and was the first song recorded for the album. It exists in two versions, a 4:51 single mix and a 7:28 album mix. "You Can't Always Get What You Want" was recorded on 16 and 17 November 1968 at Olympic Sound Studios in London. It features the London Bach Choir opening the song (the choir opening is only on the album version), highlighting throughout, and bringing it to its conclusion. Al Kooper plays piano and organ, as well as the French horn intro, while Rocky Dijon plays congas, maracas and tambourine.

In his retrospective review of the song, Richie Unterberger of AllMusic said: "If you buy John Lennon's observation that the Rolling Stones were apt to copy the Beatles' innovations within a few months or so, 'You Can't Always Get What You Want' is the Rolling Stones' counterpart to 'Hey Jude'." Jagger said in 1969, "I liked the way the Beatles did that with 'Hey Jude'. The orchestra was not just to cover everything up—it was something extra. We may do something like that on the next album."

Lyrics
The three verses (and the varied theme of the fourth verse) address major topics of the 1960s: love, politics, and drugs. Each verse captures the essence of the initial optimism and eventual disillusion, followed by the resigned pragmatism of the chorus.

Unterberger elaborated: "Much has been made of the lyrics reflecting the end of the overlong party that was the 1960s, as a snapshot of Swinging London burning out. That's a valid interpretation, but it should also be pointed out that there's also an uplifting and reassuring quality to the melody and performance. This is particularly true of the key lyrical hook, when we are reminded that we can't always get what we want, but we'll get what we need."

Jimmy Hutmaker of Excelsior, Minnesota, claimed to be the "Mr. Jimmy" cited in the song and that he said the phrase "you can't always get what you want" to Jagger during a chance encounter at an Excelsior drug store in 1964. However, David Dalton, a writer for Rolling Stone who witnessed the filming of The Rolling Stones Rock and Roll Circus, claims in his commentary for the DVD of the concert that "Mr. Jimmy" refers to Miller, the Stones producer from 1968 to 1973.

Marianne Faithfull has also claimed a role: "Obviously I also contributed to 'You Can't Always Get What You Want' and 'Dear Doctor' – junk songs... I know they used me as a muse for those tough drug songs. I knew I was being used but it was for a worthy cause."

Release and aftermath
The song was originally released on the B-side of "Honky Tonk Women" in July 1969. Although it did not chart at the time, London Records re-serviced the single in 1973 and "You Can't Always Get What You Want" reached number 42 on the Billboard Hot 100 and number 34 on the Cashbox Top 100 Singles chart. One of the Stones' most popular recordings, it has since appeared on the compilations Hot Rocks, Singles Collection (single version), Forty Licks, Rolled Gold+: The Very Best of the Rolling Stones (2007 edition), Singles 1968-1971 (single version), Slow Rollers (single version) and GRRR! (single version).

Live recordings appear on the albums Love You Live, Flashpoint, Live Licks, Brussels Affair, Hyde Park Live, and Havana Moon, as well as on The Rolling Stones Rock and Roll Circus, filmed in 1968. Stones concert films that contain the song include: Ladies and Gentlemen: The Rolling Stones, From the Vault – L.A Forum - Live in 1975, Let's Spend the Night Together, Stones at the Max, Bridges to Babylon Tour '97–98, Four Flicks, The Biggest Bang, Sweet Summer Sun: Hyde Park Live, and Havana Moon.

The song was performed live with members of Voce Chamber Choir and London Youth Choir for the Stones' 2012 shows in London, November 25 and November 29. The same choir also performed on the track at Glastonbury and two performances at Hyde Park in 2013.

Trump campaign use
Donald Trump played the Rolling Stones' recording of the song at campaign appearances during the 2016 Republican primaries and the presidential election, including his nationally televised acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention in July. Although the campaign had attained a blanket licence from ASCAP, after the convention, the band said publicly that they do not endorse Trump and requested that he cease all use of their songs immediately. Despite the requests to stop, Trump continued using the song at campaign rallies before and after the 2016 election. According to Jagger, the band considers the use of the song as a play-out at rallies to be "odd", given that it is a "sort of doomy ballad about drugs in Chelsea". The Trump campaign continued to use the song during 2020, the most recent use being to close his political rally in Tulsa, Oklahoma, on June 20, 2020. Trump was again warned by the Stones not to use their music. They said they were working with the performing rights organisation, BMI to prevent unauthorised use. The Trump campaign stopped using the song soon after and began playing "Y.M.C.A." by Village People to end his rallies instead.

Personnel
The Rolling Stones
 * Mick Jagger – lead vocals
 * Keith Richards – acoustic and electric guitars
 * Bill Wyman – bass guitar

Additional personnel
 * London Bach Choir – choral arrangements by Jack Nitzsche
 * Al Kooper – piano, organ, French horn
 * Jimmy Miller – drums
 * Rocky Dijon – congas, maracas, tambourine
 * Madeline Bell – backing vocals
 * Nanette Workman – backing vocals (credited as "Nanette Newman" on the LP)
 * Doris Troy – backing vocals

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

title: You Can't Always Get What You Want


text:
Brian Keene

Brian Keene (born September 22, 1967) is an American author and podcaster, primarily known for his work in horror, dark fantasy, crime fiction, and comic books. He has won the 2014 World Horror Grandmaster Award and two Bram Stoker Awards. In addition to his own original work, Keene has written for media properties such as Doctor Who, Thor, Hellboy, Alien, Masters of the Universe, and The X-Files.

Early life
Keene was born in 1967. He grew up in both Pennsylvania and West Virginia, and many of his books take place in these locales. After graduating high school, he served as a radioman in the U.S. Navy aboard an LPD. After his enlistment ended, Keene worked a variety of jobs before becoming a full-time writer. Among them were stints as a foundry worker, truck driver, data entry clerk, dockworker, telemarketer, customer service representative, repo man, bouncer, disc jockey, salesman, store manager, daycare instructor, custodian. In interviews, he credits this diverse background as the key to the characters that populate his books.

The Rising Series

 * 1) The Rising (2003): Delirium Books
 * 2) City of the Dead (2005): Delirium Books
 * 3) The Rising: Selected Scenes from the End of the World (2013). Deadite Press.
 * 4) The Rising: Deliverance (2015). Deadite Press.
 * 5) The Fall (Coming Soon)

Earthworm Gods Series

 * 1) Earthworm Gods (2005): Delirium Books,
 * 2) Republished as The Conqueror Worms (2006). Leisure Books.
 * 3) Republished again under its intended title Earthworm Gods (2012). Deadite Press.
 * 4) Earthworm Gods II: Deluge (2013). Deadite Press. (originally serialized on his website)
 * 5) Earthworm Gods: Selected Scenes From the End of the World (2013). Deadite Press.

Levi Stoltzfus Series

 * 1) Dark Hollow (2006): (released in hardcover as The Rutting Season) Bloodletting Press. (February 2008): Leisure Books.
 * 2) Ghost Walk (August 2008): Leisure Books
 * 3) A Gathering of Crows (August 2010): Leisure Books
 * 4) The Last of the Albatwitches (2015). Deadite Press.

Clickers Series (with J. F. Gonzalez)

 * 1) Clickers II: The Next Wave (2007). Delirium Books.
 * 2) Clickers III: Dagon Rising (2010). Delirium Books.
 * 3) Clickers vs. Zombies (2014). Deadite Press.

The Lost Level Series

 * 1) Hole in the World (2019). Apex Publications.
 * 2) The Lost Level (2015). Apex Publications.
 * 3) The Chinese Beetle (2016). Thunderstorm Books. (chapbook)
 * 4) Return to the Lost Level (2018). Apex Publications.
 * 5) Beneath the Lost Level (Coming Soon)

The Labyrinth Series

 * 1) The Seven (2015–18). Online serial. Self-Published through Patreon and physically in 2021
 * 2) Submerged. Online serial. Self-published through Patreon and physically in 2022
 * 3) Splintered. Online serial. Self-published through Patreon and physically in 2023

The Rogan Series (w/Steven L. Shrewsbury)

 * 1) King of the Bastards (2015). Apex Publications.
 * 2) Throne of the Bastards (2017). Apex Publications.
 * 3) Curse of the Bastards (2022). Apex Publications.

Non-Series

 * Terminal (2004). Bloodletting Press. Revised and expanded (2005): Bantam Spectra
 * Ghoul (2007) Leisure Books (2007): Delirium Books
 * Dead Sea (2007) Leisure Books (2007): Delirium Books
 * Shades (with Geoff Cooper) (2007): (Out of Print) Cemetery Dance Publications
 * Kill Whitey (2008): Cemetery Dance Publications (2008): Delirium Books
 * Darkness on the Edge of Town (2008): Infernal House Press (2010): Leisure Books. Revised and expanded version of previous edition.
 * Castaways (2009): Leisure Books (2009). Bloodletting Press
 * Urban Gothic (2009): Leisure Books
 * The Girl on the Glider (2010) Cemetery Dance Publications
 * Entombed (2011). Deadite Press. (takes place in same world as Dead Sea but not a direct sequel)
 * Take the Long Way Home (2011). Deadite Press.
 * Jack's Magic Beans (2011). Deadite Press.
 * Scratch (2011) Cemetery Dance Publications
 * The Damned Highway (2012) Dark Horse Publishing
 * Alone (2012). Thunderstorm Books.
 * The Cage (2012) Deadite
 * Sundancing (2013). Thunderstorm Books.
 * An Occurrence in Crazy Bear Valley (2014). Deadite Press.
 * Sixty-Five Stirrup Iron Road (2014). Deadite Press.
 * The Complex (2016). Deadite Press.
 * Pressure (2016) Thomas Dunne Books
 * School's Out (2017)
 * White Fire (2018). Deadite Press.

Collections

 * No Rest For The Wicked (2001): (Out of Print) Imaginary Worlds Publishing.
 * No Rest For The Wicked Redux (2001): (Out of Print) Vox 13 Publishing.
 * Fear of Gravity (2004). Delirium Books.
 * A Little Silver Book of Streetwise Stories (2007) Borderlands Press.
 * Unhappy Endings (2008). Delirium Books.
 * A Conspiracy of One (2012). Thunderstorm Books.
 * Blood on the Page (2014) Self-Published
 * Apocrypha (2014). Thunderstorm Books.
 * Libra Nigrum Scienta Secreta (The Black Book of Secret Knowledge) with J. F. Gonzalez (2015) Arcane Wisdom (Limited release)
 * Where We Live and Die (2015) Lazy Fascist Books
 * The Cruelty of Autumn (2015). Thunderstorm Books. Published as a limited hardcover.
 * All Dark, All the Time (2016) Self-Published
 * Good Things for Bad People (2017). Thunderstorm Books. Published as a limited hardcover.

Novellas & novelettes

 * Tequila's Sunrise (2007). Bloodletting Press.
 * Redemption (with Shane Ryan Staley) (2008): HM
 * Dead Man Living (Ongoing). Self published through Patreon
 * With Teeth (2021). Death’s Head Press.

Non-fiction

 * End of the Road (2016). Cemetery Dance. Weekly column.
 * Brian Keene's Complete History of Horror Fiction (2017-Ongoing). Cemetery Dance. Ongoing column.

Anthologies edited

 * In Delirium (January 2006): (Delirium Books). Published as a 26-copy leather-bound and a hardcover 274-copy limited hardcover.
 * New Dark Voices II (2009): (Delirium Books). Published as a hardcover 150-copy limited hardcover.
 * The Daughters of Inanna (2015). Thunderstorm Books. Published as a limited hardcover.
 * Clickers Forever: A Tribute to J.F. Gonzalez (2018). Thunderstorm Books.

Awards

 * 2001 Bram Stoker Award for Best Non-Fiction (for "Jobs In Hell")
 * 2003 Bram Stoker Award for Best First Novel (for "The Rising")

 * 2004 Shocker Award for Non-Fiction (for "Sympathy for the Devil")
 * 2014 World Horror Grand Master Award

 * 2015 Imaginarium Film Festival Awards for Best Screenplay, Best Short Film Genre, and Best Short Film Overall (for "Fast Zombies Suck")

2016 Imadjinn Award for Best Fantasy Novel (for "King of the Bastards")

 * 2017 This Is Horror Award for Nonfiction Podcast of the Year (for The Horror Show with Brian Keene).

In 2004 and 2005, Keene spearheaded a Books For Troops program, in which various horror authors supplied free, signed books to American troops serving in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere around the world. Keene was honored for this in 2005 by the 509th Logistics Fuels Flight Squadron based at Whiteman A.F.B. in Missouri.

In 2014, an American flag was flown in Keene's honor in Afghanistan and presented to him by the United States Army International Security Assistance Force.

Keene is one of the few writers who has spoken inside the headquarters of the Central Intelligence Agency in several closed sessions.

Comics and graphic novels
In 2006, three stories from Keene's Fear of Gravity were adapted in the graphic novel Brian Keene's FEAR. The stories were "Castaways", "Red Wood", and the award-winning "The King, in: Yellow".

In 2008, Marvel Comics announced that Keene would be writing for them. His first project for the company was the four-issue limited series for their MAX imprint: Dead of Night: Devil-Slayer.

Keene wrote the 25-issue series "The Last Zombie" for Antarctic Press.

Keene's work for DC Comics has included Doom Patrol, the 2010 "DCU Halloween Special", and "Masters of the Universe: The Origin of Hordak". He was originally part of the writing team for Future's End but left the project along with writer Greg Rucka, also walking away from writing Animal Man and Booster Gold.

In 2017, Keene returned to DC Comics to spearhead "DC House of Horror".

Film adaptations

 * In 2006, the short story "The Ties That Bind" was turned into a short film, and it had its world premiere on April 4, 2009, at the Garden State Film Festival.
 * In 2009, Dark Hollow was optioned for film by director Paul Campion.
 * Ghoul was made into a TV movie directed by Gregory Wilson and starring Nolan Gould and debuted on the Chiller Network on April 13, 2012.
 * In July, 2015, a film adaptation of Keene's short story "Fast Zombies Suck" was released for free via YouTube.
 * In December, 2016, The Naughty List, a film adaptation of Keene's short story "The Siqquism Who Stole Christmas" was released for free via YouTube and Vimeo.

Podcast
From 2015 to 2020, Keene hosted a weekly podcast called The Horror Show With Brian Keene. Keene and co-hosts Dave Thomas and Mary SanGiovanni discussed horror-related news and events, writing and publishing, and interviewed various horror authors, publishers, musicians, actors, and filmmakers.

Personal life
Keene currently lives in York, Pennsylvania.

Since 2012, he has been in a romantic relationship with fellow author Mary SanGiovanni. The two were married on May 27, 2023.

On June 5, 2018, he suffered first and second degree burns to his face, and second and third degree burns to his arm after an accident while burning brush on a friend's property (during flood clean-up), and was sent to recuperate in a burn unit. Due to a lack of insurance, a GoFundMe was set up to pay the medical bills.

Philanthropy
Keene is actively involved in fundraising for the Scares That Care charitable organization.

In August 2017, Keene was made a member of the board of directors for the Scares That Care charitable organization.

title: Brian Keene


text: Talk:Inequality (mathematics)

title: Talk:Inequality (mathematics)


text:
Good Timin': Live at Knebworth England 1980

Good Timin': Live at Knebworth, England 1980 is the fourth live album and a concert film by American rock band the Beach Boys that was recorded at Knebworth, Hertfordshire on June 21, 1980. It is their only released concert performance that features Brian Wilson, Dennis Wilson, Carl Wilson, Mike Love, Al Jardine and Bruce Johnston together.

The concert, a shared bill with Elkie Brooks, Mike Oldfield and Santana, was the band's last major UK performance together until their 2012 reunion tour. Good Timin' was first issued in the UK in 2002 and the following year in the US, both through the band's Brother Records imprint with independent distribution.


text:
Bruce Harwood

Bruce Harwood (born April 29, 1963) is a Canadian character actor best known for his role of John Fitzgerald Byers, one of The Lone Gunmen on the television series The X-Files. In addition to The X-Files, Harwood portrayed Byers in the spin-off series The Lone Gunmen, which aired thirteen episodes in 2001. He has also played other roles with a strong similarity to Byers, such as Willis, a technician from the Phoenix Foundation in MacGyver, and government-scientist-turned-conspiracy-theorist Dr. Avery Strong in The Outer Limits. He was a founding member of the Vancouver summer Shakespeare festival, Bard on the Beach. He also starred in the 1988 movie Earth Star Voyager.

title: Bruce Harwood


text:
Unilineal evolution

Unilineal evolution, also referred to as classical social evolution, is a 19th-century social theory about the evolution of societies and cultures. It was composed of many competing theories by various anthropologists and sociologists, who believed that Western culture is the contemporary pinnacle of social evolution. Different social status is aligned in a single line that moves from most primitive to most civilized. This theory is now generally considered obsolete in academic circles.

Intellectual thought
Theories of social and cultural evolution are common in modern European thought. Prior to the 18th century, Europeans predominantly believed that societies on Earth were in a state of decline. European society held up the world of antiquity as a standard to aspire to, and ancient Greece and ancient Rome produced levels of technical accomplishment which Europeans of the Middle Ages sought to emulate. At the same time, Christianity taught that people lived in a debased world fundamentally inferior to the Garden of Eden and Heaven. During the Age of Enlightenment, however, European self-confidence grew and the notion of progress became increasingly popular. It was during this period that what would later become known as 'sociological and cultural evolution' would have its roots.

The Enlightenment thinkers often speculated that societies progressed through stages of increasing development and looked for the logic, order and the set of scientific truths that determined the course of human history. Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, for example, argued that social development was an inevitable and determined process, similar to an acorn which has no choice but to become an oak tree. Likewise, it was assumed that societies start out primitive, perhaps in a Hobbesian state of nature, and naturally progress toward something resembling industrial Europe.

Scottish thinkers
While earlier authors such as Michel de Montaigne discussed how societies change through time, it was truly the Scottish Enlightenment which proved key in the development of cultural evolution. After Scotland's union with England in 1707, several Scottish thinkers pondered on the relationship between progress and the 'decadence' brought about by increased trade with England and the affluence it produced. The result was a series of conjectural histories. Authors such as Adam Ferguson, John Millar, and Adam Smith argued that all societies pass through a series of four stages: hunting and gathering, pastoralism and nomadism, agricultural, and finally a stage of commerce. These thinkers thus understood the changes Scotland was undergoing as a transition from an agricultural to a mercantile society.

Philosophical concepts of progress (such as those expounded by the German philosopher G.W.F. Hegel) developed as well during this period. In France authors such as Claude Adrien Helvétius and other philosophers were influenced by this Scottish tradition. Later thinkers such as Comte de Saint-Simon developed these ideas. Auguste Comte in particular presented a coherent view of social progress and a new discipline to study it: sociology.

Rising interests
These developments took place in a wider context. The first process was colonialism. Although Imperial powers settled most differences of opinion with their colonial subjects with force, increased awareness of non-Western peoples raised new questions for European scholars about the nature of society and culture. Similarly, effective administration required some degree of understanding of other cultures. Emerging theories of social evolution allowed Europeans to organize their new knowledge in a way that reflected and justified their increasing political and economic domination of others: colonized people were less-evolved, colonizing people were more evolved. The second process was the Industrial Revolution and the rise of capitalism which allowed and promoted continual revolutions in the means of production. Emerging theories of social evolution reflected a belief that the changes in Europe wrought by the Industrial Revolution and capitalism were obvious improvements. Industrialization, combined with the intense political change brought about by the French Revolution and US Constitution which were paving the way for the dominance of democracy, forced European thinkers to reconsider some of their assumptions about how society was organized.

Eventually, in the 19th century, three great classical theories of social and historical change were created: the social evolutionism theory, the social cycle theory and the Marxist historical materialism theory. Those theories had one common factor: they all agreed that the history of humanity is pursuing a certain fixed path, most likely that of the social progress. Thus, each past event is not only chronologically, but causally tied to the present and future events. Those theories postulated that by recreating the sequence of those events, sociology could discover the laws of history.

Birth and development
While social evolutionists agree that the evolution-like process leads to social progress, classical social evolutionists have developed many different theories, known as theories of unilineal evolution. Social evolutionism was the prevailing theory of early socio-cultural anthropology and social commentary, and is associated with scholars like Auguste Comte, Edward Burnett Tylor, Lewis Henry Morgan, and Herbert Spencer. Social evolutionism represented an attempt to formalize social thinking along scientific lines, later influenced by the biological theory of evolution. If organisms could develop over time according to discernible, deterministic laws, then it seemed reasonable that societies could as well. This really marks the beginning of Anthropology as a scientific discipline and a departure from traditional religious views of "primitive" cultures.

The term "classical social evolutionism" is most closely associated with the 19th-century writings of Auguste Comte, Herbert Spencer (who coined the phrase "survival of the fittest") and William Graham Sumner. In many ways Spencer's theory of 'cosmic evolution' has much more in common with the works of Jean-Baptiste Lamarck and Auguste Comte than with contemporary works of Charles Darwin. Spencer also developed and published his theories several years earlier than Darwin. In regard to social institutions, however, there is a good case that Spencer's writings might be classified as 'Social Evolutionism'. Although he wrote that societies over time progressed, and that progress was accomplished through competition, he stressed that the individual (rather than the collectivity) is the unit of analysis that evolves, that evolution takes place through natural selection and that it affects social as well as biological phenomenon.

Progressivism
Both Spencer and Comte view the society as a kind of organism subject to the process of growth—from simplicity to complexity, from chaos to order, from generalization to specialization, from flexibility to organization. They agreed that the process of societies growth can be divided into certain stages, have their beginning and eventual end, and that this growth is in fact social progress—each newer, more evolved society is better. Thus progressivism became one of the basic ideas underlying the theory of social evolutionism.

Auguste Comte
Auguste Comte, known as father of sociology, formulated the law of three stages: human development progresses from the theological stage, in which nature was mythically conceived and man sought the explanation of natural phenomena from supernatural beings, through metaphysical stage in which nature was conceived of as a result of obscure forces and man sought the explanation of natural phenomena from them until the final positive stage in which all abstract and obscure forces are discarded, and natural phenomena are explained by their constant relationship. This progress is forced through the development of human mind, and increasing application of thought, reasoning and logic to the understanding of world.

Herbert Spencer
Herbert Spencer believed that society was evolving toward increasing freedom for individuals; and so held that government intervention, ought to be minimal in social and political life, differentiated between two phases of development, focusing is on the type of internal regulation within societies. Thus, he differentiated between military and industrial societies. The earlier, more primitive military society has a goal of conquest and defence, is centralised, economically self-sufficient, collectivistic, puts the good of the group over the good of the individual, uses compulsion, force, and repression, rewards loyalty, obedience and discipline. The industrial society has a goal of production and trade, is decentralised, interconnected with other societies via economic relations, achieves its goals through voluntary cooperation and individual self-restraint, treats the good of the individual as the highest value, regulates the social life via voluntary relations, and values initiative, independence, and innovation.

Regardless of how scholars of Spencer interpret his relation to Darwin, Spencer proved to be an incredibly popular figure in the 1870s, particularly in the United States. Authors such as Edward L. Youmans, William Graham Sumner, John Fiske, John W. Burgess, Lester Frank Ward, Lewis H. Morgan and other thinkers of the gilded age all developed theories of social evolutionism as a result of their exposure to Spencer as well as Darwin.

Lewis H. Morgan
In his 1877 classic Ancient Societies, lawyer and anthropologist Lewis H. Morgan followed Montestquieu and Tylor in distinguishing three eras: savagery, barbarism and civilisation, with Morgan introducing further subdivisions into the first two stages. Morgan attempts to assign particular cultures to one of his stages on the basis of its level of technological development, which for Morgan has in each case correlates in patterns of subsistence, and kinship and political structures. Thus Morgan introduced a link between the social progress and technological progress. Morgan viewed technological progress as a force behind social progress, and any social change—in social institutions, organisations or ideologies—as having its beginnings in changes in technology.

Morgan disagreed with the accusation of unilinealism, writing:"In speaking thus positively of the several forms of the family in their relative order, there is a danger of being misunderstood. I do not mean to imply that one form rises complete in a certain status in society, flourishes universally and exclusively wherever tribes are found in the same status, and then disappears in another, which is the next higher form..."Morgan thus argued that the forms evolved unevenly and in different combinations of elements. Morgan's theories were popularised by Friedrich Engels, who based his The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State on it. For Engels and other Marxists, this theory was important as it supported their conviction that materialistic factors—economical and technological—are decisive in shaping the fate of humanity.

Émile Durkheim
Émile Durkheim, another of the 'fathers' of sociology, has developed a similar, dichotomical view of social progress. His key concept was social solidarity, as he defined the social evolution in terms of progressing from mechanical solidarity to organic solidarity. In mechanical solidarity, people are self-sufficient, there is little integration and thus there is the need for use of force and repression to keep society together. In organic solidarity, people are much more integrated and interdependent and specialisation and cooperation is extensive. Progress from mechanical to organic solidarity is based first on population growth and increasing population density, second on increasing 'morality density' (development of more complex social interactions) and thirdly, on the increasing specialisation in workplace. To Durkheim, the most important factor in the social progress is the division of labor.

Edward Burnett Tylor and Lewis H. Morgan.
Anthropologists Edward Burnett Tylor in England and Lewis H. Morgan in the United States worked with data from indigenous people, who they claimed represented earlier stages of cultural evolution that gave insight into the process and progression of cultural evolution. Morgan would later have a significant influence on Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, who developed a theory of cultural evolution in which the internal contradictions in society created a series of escalating stages that ended in a socialist society (see Marxism). Tylor and Morgan elaborated upon, modified and expanded the theory of unilinear evolution, specifying criteria for categorizing cultures according to their standing within a fixed system of growth of humanity as a whole while examining the modes and mechanisms of this growth.

Their analysis of cross-cultural data was based on three assumptions: Theorists usually measured progression (that is, the difference between one stage and the next) in terms of increasing social complexity (including class differentiation and a complex division of labor), or an increase in intellectual, theological, and aesthetic sophistication. These 19th-century ethnologists used these principles primarily to explain differences in religious beliefs and kinship terminologies among various societies.
 * 1) contemporary societies may be classified and ranked as more "primitive" or more "civilized";
 * 2) There are a determinate number of stages between "primitive" and "civilized" (e.g. band, tribe, chiefdom, and state),
 * 3) All societies progress through these stages in the same sequence, but at different rates.

Lester Frank Ward
There were however notable differences between the work of Lester Frank Ward's and Tylor's approaches. Lester Frank Ward developed Spencer's theory but unlike Spencer, who considered the evolution to be general process applicable to the entire world, physical and sociological, Ward differentiated sociological evolution from biological evolution. He stressed that humans create goals for themselves and strive to realise them, whereas there is no such intelligence and awareness guiding the non-human world, which develops more or less at random. He created a hierarchy of evolution processes. First, there is cosmogenesis, creation and evolution of the world. Then, after life develops, there is biogenesis. Development of humanity leads to anthropogenesis, which is influenced by the human mind. Finally, when society develops, so does sociogenesis, which is the science of shaping the society to fit with various political, cultural and ideological goals.

Edward Burnett Tylor, pioneer of anthropology, focused on the evolution of culture worldwide, noting that culture is an important part of every society and that it is also subject to the process of evolution. He believed that societies were at different stages of cultural development and that the purpose of anthropology was to reconstruct the evolution of culture, from primitive beginnings to the modern state.

Ferdinand Tönnies
Ferdinand Tönnies describes the evolution as the development from informal society, where people have many liberties and there are few laws and obligations, to modern, formal rational society, dominated by traditions and laws and are restricted from acting as they wish. He also notes that there is a tendency of standardization and unification, when all smaller societies are absorbed into the single, large, modern society. Thus Tönnies can be said to describe part of the process known today as the globalisation. Tönnies was also one of the first sociologists to claim that the evolution of society is not necessarily going in the right direction, that the social progress is not perfect, it can even be called a regress as the newer, more evolved societies are obtained only after paying a high costs, resulting in decreasing satisfaction of individuals making up that society. Tönnies' work became the foundation of neo-evolutionism.

Franz Boas
The early 20th century inaugurated a period of systematic critical examination, and rejection of unilineal theories of cultural evolution. Cultural anthropologists such as Franz Boas, typically regarded as the leader of anthropology's rejection of classical social evolutionism, used sophisticated ethnography and more rigorous empirical methods to argue that Spencer, Tylor, and Morgan's theories were speculative and systematically misrepresented ethnographic data. Additionally, they rejected the distinction between "primitive" and "civilized" (or "modern"), pointing out that so-called primitive contemporary societies have just as much history, and were just as evolved, as so-called civilized societies. They therefore argued that any attempt to use this theory to reconstruct the histories of non-literate (i.e. leaving no historical documents) peoples is entirely speculative and unscientific. They observed that the postulated progression, a stage of civilization identical to that of modern Europe, is ethnocentric. They also pointed out that the theory assumes that societies are clearly bounded and distinct, when in fact cultural traits and forms often cross social boundaries and diffuse among many different societies (and is thus an important mechanism of change). Boas in his culture history approach focused on anthropological fieldwork in an attempt to identify factual processes instead of what he criticized as speculative stages of growth.

Global change
Later critics observed that this assumption of firmly bounded societies was proposed precisely at the time when European powers were colonizing non-Western societies, and was thus self-serving. Many anthropologists and social theorists now consider unilineal cultural and social evolution a Western myth seldom based on solid empirical grounds. Critical theorists argue that notions of social evolution are simply justifications for power by the elites of society. Finally, the devastating World Wars that occurred between 1914 and 1945 crippled Europe's internal confidence shaking the remaining belief in Western civilization's superiority. After millions of deaths, genocide, and the destruction of Europe's industrial infrastructure, the idea of linear progress with Western civilization furthest along seemed dubious at best.

Major objections and concerns
Thus modern socio-cultural evolutionism rejects most of classical social evolutionism due to various theoretical problems:
 * 1) The theory was deeply ethnocentric—it makes heavy value judgements on different societies; with Western civilization seen as the most valuable.
 * 2) It assumed all cultures follow the same path or progression and have the same goals.
 * 3) It equated civilization with material culture (technology, cities, etc.)
 * 4) It equated evolution with progress or fitness, based on deep misunderstandings of evolutionary theory.
 * 5) It is contradicted by evidence. Some (but not all) supposedly primitive societies are arguably more peaceful and equitable/democratic than many modern societies.

Because social evolution was posited as a scientific theory, it was often used to support unjust and often racist social practices—particularly colonialism, slavery, and the unequal economic conditions present within industrialized Europe.

title: Unilineal evolution


text:
Calycanthus

Calycanthus, called sweetshrub, is a genus of flowering plants in the family Calycanthaceae. The genus includes two to four species depending on taxonomic interpretation; three are accepted by most 21st century sources.

Description
Calycanthus plants are deciduous shrubs, growing to 4 m tall. The leaves are opposite and undivided. The plants are aromatic. The flowers are typical of the family Calycanthaceae in lacking distinct sepals and petals, but instead having spirals of tepals. Flowers are produced from spring onwards, until October in the case of C. occidentalis. The flowers of the two North American species are scented, 4 - 7 cm across, with numerous dark red to burgundy to purplish brown tepals. C. chinensis has broader tepals, the outer ones white flushed with pink, the inner ones mostly yellow with purple marks at the base. The fruit is an elliptical dry capsule, containing numerous seeds.

C. floridus and C. occidentalis are pollinated by beetles. Their flowers produce small protein-rich growths that feed beetle pollinators. C. occidentalis has been shown to produce chemicals that mimic fermenting fruits that attract beetles in the families Nitidulidae and Staphylinidae.

Taxonomy
The genus Calycanthus was created by Carl Linnaeus in 1759, with the sole species Calycanthus floridus. In 1762, he added Calycanthus praecox, now treated as Chimonanthus praecox.

Phylogeny and evolution
A 2006 molecular phylogenetic study of the family Calycanthaceae found that the three widely recognized species of Calycanthus formed a monophyletic group. Relationships among the three species differed depending on whether chloroplast or nuclear data was used. A cladogram obtained by combining the two is shown below.

The family Calycanthaceae may have had a Gondwanan origin. The sole Australian representative, Idiospermum australiense, would then represent an ancient relic, probably having diverged in the Cretaceous. There are no extant South American members of the family, although fossils are known. Calycanthus may have migrated into North America from eastern Asia, or may have originated in South America, moved northwards and then spread to eastern Asia.

Species
, Plants of the World Online accepted four species:
 * Calycanthus brockianus Ferry & Ferry f. —north central Georgia; has greenish rather than brownish red flowers, and may only be a triploid color variant of C. floridus.
 * Calycanthus chinensis (W.C.Cheng & S.Y.Chang) W.C.Cheng & S.Y.Chang ex P.T.Li (syn. Sinocalycanthus sinensis)—Chinese sweetshrub, Chinese wax shrub, native to eastern China, with white flowers
 * Calycanthus floridus L. —Carolina spicebush, eastern sweetshrub, native to the Eastern United States, from New York and Missouri, south through the Appalachian Mountains, Piedmont, and Mississippi Valley, to Louisiana, and east to northern Florida
 * C. f. var. floridus (syn. C. mohrii)—eastern sweetshrub; twigs pubescent (hairy)
 * C. f. var. glaucus (syn. C. fertilis)—eastern sweetshrub; twigs glabrous (smooth).
 * Calycanthus occidentalis Hook. & Arn. —California spicebush, western sweetshrub, native to moist habitats of California below 1500 m, including in the California Coast Ranges, San Joaquin Valley, and Sierra Nevada., the Oregon Flora Project documented two specimens in Oregon, marked as "exotic?".

C. chinensis has a confused taxonomic history. It was first described in 1963 as Calycanthus chinensis by W.C. Cheng and S.Y. Chang, but invalidly because two different collections were both given as holotypes. The authors then described it validly in 1964 in their new genus Sinocalycanthus. In 1979, P.T. Li rejected the genus Sinocalycanthus, and validated the original name Calycanthus chinensis.

Cultivation
Calycanthus species are cultivated as ornamental plants by plant nurseries, including in the United States and England.

Calycanthus floridus is planted in gardens, as a specimen shrub, or for hedges. The English naturalist Mark Catesby drew it as the support for the bird he called "Garrulus Carolinensis The Chatterer" (now Bombycilla cedrorum) in a work published from 1731 onwards. He described the shrub as growing in "remote and hilly parts" and having bark "as odoriferous as cinnamon". The colonial planters of the Carolinas transplanted it into their gardens, and the botanist Peter Collinson described it to Linnaeus and imported it into England from Charleston in the Province of South Carolina around 1756.

Calycanthus occidentalis is planted in traditional, native plant, and wildlife gardens, and for natural landscaping and habitat restoration projects, primarily in California and the Western United States. It was introduced into cultivation in 1831.

Calycanthus chinensis was introduced into cultivation in both the United States and the United Kingdom from the Shanghai Botanical Garden in the 1980s. It has since been used extensively in the breeding of cultivars.

Hybridization
Several hybrids and hybrid cultivars have been produced, with the intention of combining the larger flower size of C. chinensis with the colour and scent of the two North American species, as well as their greater hardiness. The hybrid between C. chinensis and C. floridus has been named C. × raulstonii. It combines the larger flowers of C. chinesis with the flower color of C. floridus. The original cross has been given the cultivar name 'Hartlage Wine' after the student, Richard Hartlage, who made the first crosses. Further crosses have been made. 'Venus' involves C. occidentalis as well.

Hybrid cultivars include:
 * 'Aphrodite' (C. chinensis × C. occidentalis) – US; large reddish-purple flowers with yellow marks on the inner tepals, borne on relatively long stalks; long flowering season
 * 'Hartlage Wine' (C. × raulstonii) – US, 1991; resembles C. chinensis in leaf and flower size, with the flower colour of C. floridus; may reach 2 m in height; given the Royal Horticultural Society's Award of Garden Merit
 * 'Hongyun' (C. × raulstonii) – China, 2001; large flowers of C. chinensis with the red colour of C. floridus
 * 'Solar Flare' (C. × raulstonii) – US, 2003–2006; similar to 'Hartlage Wine' but with larger and thicker leaves and smaller flowers; appears to be hardier to frost than 'Hartlage Wine'
 * 'Venus' (C. × raulstonii × [C. chinensis × C. occidentalis]) – large white flowers, marked with yellow and purple at the centre; strongly fragrant

Other uses
Calycanthus floridus and C. occidentalis were both used as a traditional medicinal plant by Native Americans. The indigenous peoples of California also used C. occidentalis in basketweaving and for arrow shafts.

Essential oils
Calycanthus oil, distilled from the flowers, is an essential oil used in some quality perfumes.

title: Calycanthus


text:
Elverum Authorization

The Elverum Authorization (Elverumsfullmakta) allowed the Cabinet of Norway to temporarily and legitimately assert absolute authority given that the Storting (the Norwegian parliament) was no longer able to convene in ordinary session in Oslo. The action was approved unanimously by the Storting in the town of Elverum on 9 April 1940, after the Norwegian royal family, the Cabinet, and the Storting had evacuated Oslo to evade capture by German troops in the course of Operation Weserübung during World War II.

Text
The authorization reads, in translated form: The Storting authorizes the Government, until the time comes when the Government and the presidency of the Storting is able to confer and assemble the Storting to its next ordinary session, to maintain the interests of the realm and make those decisions and determinations on behalf of the Storting and Government, that are considered needed to maintain the country's security and future.

Significance
The authorization is of historical significance because it allowed the Norwegian executive branch to assert legitimacy – even while in exile.

Debate
The authorization is controversial in that it constituted a complete abandonment of the legislative powers in Norway during the war. The issue was brought to the Supreme Court of Norway, which ruled that the authorization was legitimate and valid.

Critics have stated that the authorization was invalid because there was no constitutional basis for the Storting to dissolve itself in such a manner. These critics also claim that Section 17 – which was invoked in the authorization – only authorized emergency powers within the areas of "trade", "customs", "economy", and "police" until the Storting could be seated again.

Germany demanded the king to appoint Vidkun Quisling as prime minister. He refused, but if he had done that, together with the Elverum Authorization, Quisling would have got a formal right to be dictator of Norway. Instead Quisling was the dictator only on authorization of Hitler and the German troops.

Result
In any event, the legitimacy of the exiled government was to little extent called into question during the war, except by the Quisling government and the German occupying power. Tormod Otter Johansen, a professor with the University of Gothenburg's Law Department, later noted that "It is not difficult to see the emergency during an occupation, and the resistance that the government and resistance movement felt necessary to engage in on the basis of this emergency. The legal argument for constitutional necessity seems pertinent to this case, since there can be no greater ‘constitutional’ threat than the occupation and dissolving of the existing state. The threat to human life and security by the occupants further motivated the use of emergency powers."

title: Elverum Authorization


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diego Isais

 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. Sjakkalle (Check!)  14:24, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Diego Isais
Apparently a Star Wars character. The article had a speedy tag, which I removed since it does not fit the criteria. It should still go, however, unless someone can fix it. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:50, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong delete. This is not a canon character, but one created by a user who's bordering on being a vandal.--Kross 23:51, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete unverifiable fanfic. JamesBurns 08:23, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. The link from the VfD page to here appears to be bad.  Dcarrano 14:51, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, non-notable fanfic. Dcarrano 14:51, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.


text:
User:Trurl~enwiki

I am a doctoral student in computer science at the University of Pennsylvania.

My user name comes from the constructor Trurl in The Cyberiad.

I will fill in more here as time allows.

My contributions so far:
 * 1) anonymously, has been to note that Hermann Zapf created AMS Euler.  Some other individual was kind enough to start a nice page for AMS Euler since then.
 * 2) Frank Pfenning
 * 3) Added information on the forthcoming sans-serif faces for the Palatino family.

My top priorities:
 * 1) Fleshing out GADTs (wobbly types will probably be subsidiary to this entry).
 * 2) Creating an entry for de Bruijn indices which isn't even mentioned in Nicolaas govert de Bruijn's entry.
 * 3) Improvements to Benjamin C. Pierce and Frank Pfenning.
 * 4) Created an combined entry on the Squigol notions of bananas, barbed-wire, and lenses.

Other things I would like to work on eventually: intensional type analysis, parametricity, Delphin (the language not the submarine), System I, information flow type systems, Stephanie C. Weirich

title: User:Trurl~enwiki