text:
Solomon Foot

Solomon Foot (November 19, 1802 – March 28, 1866) was an American politician and attorney. He held numerous offices during his career, including Speaker of the Vermont House of Representatives, State's Attorney for Rutland County, member of the United States House of Representatives, and United States Senator.

A native of Cornwall, Vermont, Foot began working on local farms at age nine, helping support his family after the death of his father. After graduating from Middlebury College, Foot worked as a teacher, school principal, and college professor while studying law. After attaining admission to the bar in 1831, he opened a practice in Rutland.

Entering politics as a Whig, Foot served in several offices, including member of the Vermont House of Representatives, delegate to the state constitutional conventions of 1833 and 1836, and Rutland County State's Attorney. He was Vermont's Speaker of the House from 1837 to 1839. Foot served in the United States House of Representatives from 1843 to 1847 and was noted for his opposition to the Mexican–American War and the extension of slavery. He did not run for reelection in 1846; returned to the Vermont House, he served as Speaker from 1847 to 1848.

In 1850 Foot was elected to the United States Senate; he became a Republican when the party was founded, and won reelection in 1856 and 1862. Foot served as President pro tempore of the United States Senate during the American Civil War, and was a strong advocate for the Union. He headed the Joint Congressional Committee on Public Buildings and Grounds beginning in 1861, and which included supervising completion of the United States Capitol's construction.

Foot died in Washington, D.C., in 1866; he was buried at Evergreen Cemetery in Rutland.

Early life
Foot was born on November 19, 1802, in Cornwall, Vermont. He was the son of Dr. Solomon and Betsey Crossett Foot, and his family lived across the road from William Slade. Foot's father died when he was nine years old, and he worked on local farms to help support his family. He graduated from Middlebury College in 1826 and also received a master's degree from Middlebury.

He was a tutor in Middlebury and Burlington, preceptor of Castleton Academy, and professor of natural philosophy at the Vermont Medical School in Castleton.

While teaching he studied law with attorneys Benjamin F. Langdon and Reuben R. Thrall. Foot attained admission to the bar in 1831, afterwards practicing in Rutland.

Start of career
Foot served in the Vermont House of Representatives in 1833 and was a Delegate to the Vermont State Constitutional Convention in 1836. He served again in the Vermont House from 1836 to 1839 and was Speaker from 1837 to 1839.

He served as Rutland County State's Attorney from 1836 to 1842.

Congressman
Foot was elected to the United States House of Representatives as a Whig in 1842 and served two terms, 1843 to 1847. As a Congressman Foot opposed extending slavery and the Mexican–American War.

He declined renomination in 1846. Returned to the Vermont House of Representatives, Foot was again chosen to serve as Speaker, holding the post from 1847 to 1848.

1848 Whig Convention
Foot was a Delegate to the 1848 Whig National Convention, and was Chairman of the Vermont delegation. Abbott Lawrence of Massachusetts, who had worked diligently to obtain the Presidential nomination for Zachary Taylor, expected to be the Vice Presidential nominee, counting on the support of Thurlow Weed of New York and the southern delegates who had backed Taylor. Northern and border state delegates, who had backed Henry Clay or Daniel Webster for President, threatened to run a northern candidate in opposition to Taylor unless a northerner other than Lawrence—one seen as less willing to allow slavery—was selected for Vice President. They proposed Millard Fillmore of New York.

Other delegates promoted Fillmore because they opposed the efforts of Weed and William H. Seward to control the party in New York, and believed that Weed was working to install Seward as Secretary of State in a Taylor administration. They backed Fillmore for Vice President because in an era when the President, Vice President and cabinet were expected to reflect geographic balance, if Fillmore became Vice President, another New Yorker (Seward) could not be expected to claim a place in the cabinet.

Foot went to the convention as a supporter of Lawrence. Recognizing that the Whigs would likely collapse if Lawrence was nominated and northern delegates left the party, Foot agreed to support Fillmore. Lawrence's support eroded as other northern delegates followed Foot's lead, and on the first ballot, Fillmore had 115 votes and Lawrence 109. Fillmore won the nomination on the second ballot, and the ticket of Taylor and Fillmore went on to win the election.

United States Senator
Foot was elected to the United States Senate as a Whig in 1850. He became a Republican at the party's founding and was reelected to the Senate in 1856 and 1862. He served from March 4, 1851, until his death.

In early 1861 Foot met the Vermont delegates to the Peace Conference which attempted to prevent the start of the American Civil War. At this meeting, he shared with them his view that the conference was a sham by secessionists who hoped to obtain additional time to plan for the withdrawal of their states from the Union.

Foot was also Chairman of the Senate committee responsible for the inauguration of Abraham Lincoln in 1861.

Foot served as the Senate's President pro tempore from 1861 to 1864. Because Vice President Hannibal Hamlin was often absent, Foot usually presided over the Senate during the war, and he was commended for his tact and fairness.

He was Chairman of the Joint Congressional Committee on Public Buildings and Grounds from 1861 until his death. In this capacity, he oversaw completion of construction on the United States Capitol.

Death
Foot died in Washington, D.C., on March 28, 1866. Funeral services were held in the Chamber of the United States Senate. He is interred at Evergreen Cemetery, Rutland, Vermont.

Honors
Foot was a Trustee of Middlebury College and the University of Vermont. He received an honorary LL.D. degree from Middlebury in 1857.

Family
Foot was married in 1839 to Emily Fay of Rutland. They had one daughter, Helen Eliza Foot (1840–1841). Emily died on May 2, 1842.

In 1844, Foot married Mary A. (Hodges) Dana.

Foot's brother Jonathan (born October 31, 1804) graduated from Vermont Medical College in 1829. He settled in Whitby, Ontario, Canada, where he practiced medicine.

Solomon Foot's mother lived with him in Rutland until her death in 1845.

title: Solomon Foot


text: User talk:65.66.197.215

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

title: User talk:65.66.197.215


text:
User:R@z0r

r@z0r=l33t

title: User:R@z0r


text:
KTU (band)

KTU (pronounced K2) is a Finnish-American progressive/experimental musical supergroup. In 2004, Trey Gunn and Pat Mastelotto started collaborating with Kimmo Pohjonen and Samuli Kosminen, forming KTU out of their respective duos TU and Kluster.

History
Pohjonen and Kosminen formed Kluster in 2001. Both award-winning musicians are known as adventurers in their respective fields and their partnership takes accordion music to new and unexplored territory. On stage, Kosminen reproduces samples of Pohjonen's accordion and voice percussively by way of electronic drum pads. Samuli also drums with Icelandic band Múm, and other recent Kluster collaborations include the project Uniko, together with Kronos Quartet.

Percussionist Pat Mastelotto and touch guitarist Trey Gunn have enjoyed successful careers with the band King Crimson. The two met at Peter Gabriel's Real World Studios before touring with David Sylvian & Robert Fripp. As the duo TU, they have released one studio album.

Seeds for KTU took root at SXSW in Austin, Texas in March 1999, when Pohjonen shared a billing with Mastelotto/Gunn/Robert Fripp's ProjeKcts Three at the Electric Lounge. Plans for the quartet took shape over the next five years.

KTU rehearsals and the World Premiere concert took place in Helsinki at the Nosturi club in April 2004, followed by four concerts in Tokyo; recordings from these shows comprise the debut record 8 Armed Monkey, released in 2005. Live concerts continued in 2005 with headlining festival appearances in Germany at the Moers Festival, Kulturzelt, Kulturarena, as well as FMM Sines in Portugal. In 2007, KTU debuted their live show in the US and Mexico as a trio (minus Kosminen, who continues to contribute to the band on occasion).

The group's second album, Quiver, was released in March 2009.

Band members
Current
 * Trey Gunn (Warr Guitar)
 * Pat Mastelotto (rhythmic devices, beats, noises, percussion)
 * Kimmo Pohjonen (chromatic button accordion, voice)

Past
 * Samuli Kosminen (samples)

Discography

 * 8 Armed Monkey (2005)
 * Quiver (2009)

title: KTU (band)


text:
Talk:Burroughs MCP

untitled
Copies of substantially the same article exist in several locations including Fact Archive; many of those sites cite Wikipedia as the source, so it is difficult to tell now if this is a copyvio. Someone better equipped to research the history may want to have a closer look. --Kgf0 19:08, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

How is this page not wikified? Just wondering since a cursory look reveals no non-wiki markup. But then again, WTF do I know? Thirdgen 09:45, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I added a link to Category:Computing by operating system and only later noticed that it was already linked to Category:Operating system. I'm not quite sure what is supposed to be in the former Category so I'm going to leave it as it is and let someone correct me if I'm wrong. --JeffW 22:51, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I added an OS Infobox (is this a template?). I invented the term priced source for the source model because unlike closed source the source can be had for a price. I also used menu-based interface for the default UI because the default interface for the user, MARC, consists of a menu, unlike a command line interface, but it is requires the menu choices be entered as text, unlike a GUI. --JeffW 19:39, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Moving page to MCP (Operating System)
I'm proposing to move this page to the name "MCP (Operating System)" because no one calls it the Master Control Program. I'm not sure how many people know that that's what it stands for. As I understand it, the only way to make it show up on the Category: Operating systems page as MCP is to change the name of the page. I won't move it for four days to give anyone who wants to a chance to comment (and because as a new user I can't use the move command for four days anyway).--JeffW 04:36, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Since I proposed this move I've discovered that Burroughs actually had three OSs called MCP, one each for their large, medium, and small systems. So would the names of MCP (Burroughs Large Systems), etc. be ok. Would it be better to have MCP (Burroughs Operating Systems) in the Operating System category with that page linking to MCP (Large Systems)? --JeffW 12:38, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

MCP was the generic term Burroughs used for their operating systems. They usually shared the same general philiosphy but implementation and features differed considerably. The large systems MCP was the first and probably the model for the others. There were MCP's for the medium systesm B2x00, B3x00 and B4x00, another for the B1x000, one for B700 systesm followed by the CMS MCP which had implementations on the B[8|9]0, B[8|9]00 and B1[8|9]00 computers in the mid 1970's. 18:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

The Name is "Master Control Programm" as the manual says ;) greetz alex http://www.cs.virginia.edu/brochure/images/manuals/b5000/brochure/b5000_broch.html

Open Source?
I worked as a Burroughs systems programmer in the 80s and had a B6700 and B6800. At least then, and I imagine still, all of the source code for all the systems programs was available and in fact that was how you did MCP and other component patches and upgrades, i.e. recompilation. There was/is no reason to protect the sources because they only run on the B machines. -juan@acm.org

 * In fact, because I was quite young as Systems Programmer I printed out all of the MCP and most of the other base OS elements

 * Signing and correcting,just received some correspondence on it. Dunno when I posted this, but I did confirm later that Unisys still ships source, I think in the '08/09 timeframe . Lycurgus (talk) 11:01, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

First open source OS?
I'm not sure I buy the claim that MCP was the first open-source OS. In particular, IBSYS was available in open source on the IBM 7090, introduced in 1959, and it descended in part from an OS developed by SHARE members on the 709. Further, it was not common for operating systems code to be shipped in binary only form in that era; that practice did not start until the late 1970s in the IBM world, and it was hardly unique in that regard. Jay Maynard 00:59, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Change name to Unisys_MCP

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was no consensus for move. – Juliancolton  | Talk 01:27, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Burroughs MCP → Unisys MCP — since Unisys took over Burroughs more than 20 years ago and since MCP is still being sold by Unisys. It would be renamed with a redirect from Burroughs MCP. Damianthomas (talk) 22:55, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It doesn't necessarily matter what the current owner wants it to be called, for our purposes. What's more important, as is outlined in WP:UCN, is what is most often used by general reader sources. In other words: News media, books, magazines, etc... Unfortunately, there don't seem to be any third party references given in the current article, which makes any real determination on what the "common name" actually is nearly impossible. The article really needs third party references in order to establish notability anyway, so my recommendation is to table this for now and re-address it after improving the article. — V = I * R  (talk) 04:37, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Unlike IBM ...
"Unlike IBM, which faced hardware competition after the departure of Gene Amdahl, Burroughs software was designed to run only on proprietary hardware."

I suspect, but offer no evidence, that IBM software was designed to run only on proprietary systems, i.e., IBM's S/360 architecture. Unfortunately for them, Mr. Amdahl designed compatible hardware.

If someone had bothered to build Burroughs-compatible hardware, presumably Burroughs software would be equally 'portable'.

That is, this is not a matter of software design; it is a matter of whether there were functional clones of the original hardware. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.20.148.80 (talk) 02:23, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

 * Addressed this. Vt320 (talk) 18:09, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Unisys MCP programming languages
Subtopic, no need for a standalone article. Enterprisey (talk!) 09:04, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ Klbrain (talk) 20:36, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Page should be renamed to "Unisys MCP"
The name should be change to Burroughs/Unisys Large system MCPs.

There were also MCPs for the small system CMS (Computer Management System) range which ran on the B80/CP+, B700+, B1700+ architectures. There was another version for the medium system range B2000-B4000. This also came with editable source code, though most used the standard builds i.e 20S. All three MCPs used the same basic SPO operator commands i.e MX WY IL UL DS... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adsjaldjjfgwetwlla (talk • contribs) 19:47, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Burroughs MCP


text:
User talk:R@z0r

Thanks for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks.

Please stop adding nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you were just trying to experiment, then use the sandbox instead. Thank you. - SimonP 19:20, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --Pgk 19:25, 3 October 2005 (UTC) SCREW YOU

title: User talk:R@z0r


text:
Children of the Corn III: Urban Harvest

Children of the Corn III: Urban Harvest is a 1995 American supernatural slasher film directed by James D. R. Hickox, and starring Daniel Cerny, Jim Metzler, Nancy Grahn, and Mari Morrow. It is the third film in the Children of the Corn series, and focuses on two mysterious brothers who are adopted from rural Nebraska and brought to Chicago as a chain of deadly occurrences surrounding the family follows, involving a cult in which the younger brother is a follower. Children of the Corn III marked the film debuts of Nicholas Brendon, Ivana Miličević, and Charlize Theron. Ed Grady reprises his role as Dr. Richard Appleby from the first sequel via a flashback sequence to Children of the Corn II: The Final Sacrifice.

The film was followed by an unrelated sequel, titled Children of the Corn IV: The Gathering (1996).

Plot
In a farm in Gatlin, Nebraska, Joshua and his younger brother Eli take refuge in the nearby cornfield when their abusive father comes looking for them in a drunken rage. As their father approaches with a scythe, Eli decides to stay behind and face him, despite Joshua's insistence they flee and find a better hiding spot. After rebuking their father for beating Joshua, he uses a pagan Bible to invoke the power of "He Who Walks Behind the Rows" to have the cornstalks murder their father, turning his mutilated body into a makeshift scarecrow. Joshua returns to check on Eli and the two depart, with Eli's Bible being magically buried in the soil.

Eli and Joshua are being taken into foster care with William and Amanda Porter of Chicago after the death of their father, who was killed by Eli. The two boys do not mix well with a home in modern Chicago; their formal, Amish-like clothes from Gatlin, Eli's fire-and-brimstone prayer at dinner, and them bringing a suitcase full of corn that Eli stole to Chicago strike their new parents and neighbors as unusual. On his first night in Chicago, after everyone else has gone to sleep, Eli quietly leaves the Porters', taking his corn-filled suitcase, and heads to an empty factory on the other side of the backyard fence. There he prays to He Who Walks Behind the Rows and plants corn seeds on the factory grounds; rows of corn appear almost instantly.

The next day the boys start school, and Eli nearly gets into a fight with T-Loc, a student in Joshua's grade, and harshly criticizes Joshua for playing basketball with some of the other students. Disgusted with their classmates' modern lifestyle, Eli decides to bring He Who Walks Behind the Rows to Chicago, and a homeless man who finds the cornfield is murdered. Joshua makes becomes attracted to his neighbor Maria and befriends her brother Malcolm, gradually spending less and less time with Eli.

The social worker who brought Eli and Joshua to the Porters' discovers that Eli was originally adopted from Gatlin, Nebraska (the town from the first film), and that he has not aged since 1964. She tries to warn the Porters, but Eli quickly burns her alive for knowing too much. Amanda notices Eli's strange mannerisms, and when she tries to cut down his cornfield it attacks her. She attempts to escape, but she trips on a pole and her head is impaled on a broken pipe, killing her instantly. William finds the cornfield Eli has planted and realizes that with its seemingly-perfect natural invulnerability to disease, ability to grow out-of-season and in the worst of soil, it could result in high agricultural demand. William begins efforts to market the distribution of the corn and looks forward to the massive profits Eli's strain of corn will bring.

Eli neglects to inform his foster father of another property the corn possesses: it warps the minds of those who eat it, making adults enter a deluded state of cheerful, naive apathy and children turn into followers of He Who Walks Behind the Rows. Wiliam, having tasted the corn, becomes indifferent to everything except finding the means to distribute the corn, and eventually is able to find backers for the venture. Eli ultimately manages to sway the other students towards his beliefs, turning them against the principal and convincing them to abandon basketball and other typically routine activities. Alarmed at Eli's conversion of the students, the principal attempts to inform other staff, but they don't believe him, as Eli's efforts have actually restored order at the school to a degree few had thought possible.

By the time Joshua realizes the full truth, Eli has killed the school principal, along with Malcolm and Maria's parents. Furthermore, he has gained full control of his fellow students. Joshua and Malcolm travel to the farm in Gatlin and after defeating Joshua's reanimated father, manage to find Eli's Bible in the cornfield. However, He Walks Behind the Rows attacks them. Malcolm is violently dismembered, but Joshua manages to escape with the Bible and return to Chicago. William arrives at the factory and announces that Eli's corn will be shipped around the world. Eli then murders him with a sickle. Joshua arrives and confronts Eli, revealing that he and the Bible are linked, allowing one to survive indefinitely as long as the other is intact. Eli charges at Joshua, attempting to reclaim the Bible. But just as he manages to grab it, Joshua stabs Eli with a sickle, piercing the Bible in the process, destroying both of them.

Just as all the students break free of the corn's spell, He Who Walks Behinds the Rows emerges from the soil, taking the form of a giant, grotesque worm-like monster. It begins to kill several students, including T-Loc, and swallowing Maria. Joshua identifies its weakness as the large, root-like section of its lower body, embedded in the ground. Using his sickle, Joshua slices through this part, seemingly killing the monster. After it collapses, Joshua frees Maria and leaves with the other students.

As the film closes, we see the first shipment of Eli's corn arrives in Germany, the beginning of shipments all over the world.

Cast

 * Daniel Cerny as Eli Porter
 * Ron Melendez as Joshua Porter
 * Mari Morrow as Maria Elkman
 * Michael Ensign as Father Frank Nolan
 * Jon Clair as Malcolm Elkman
 * Duke Stroud as Earl
 * Rance Howard as Employer
 * Brian Peck as Jake Witman
 * Nancy Lee Grahn as Amanda Porter
 * Ed Grady as Dr. Richard Appleby
 * Jim Metzler as William Porter

 * Garvin Funches as T-Loc
 * Yvette Freeman as Samantha
 * Charlize Theron as Eli's follower (uncredited)
 * Ivana Miličević as Eli's follower/Acolyte
 * Nicholas Brendon as Basketball Player One

Production
Principal photography began in December 1993 and ended on January 15, 1994. The special effects for the film were supervised by Kevin Yagher.

Home media
Children of the Corn III: Urban Harvest was the first film in the series made under Dimension Films and Miramax Films, who purchased the rights to the series and distributed the seven sequels to the original two films. It was also the first film in the series to be released direct-to-video, arriving at U.S. video stores on September 12, 1995, on VHS and DVD.

The film debuted on Blu-ray on May 10, 2011, via Echo Bridge Entertainment.

Reception
J.R. Taylor of Entertainment Weekly gave the film a B-rating: "This latest installment — the best of the Stephen King-derived series — offers some unexpected plot developments and surprisingly chilling gore. But fear not, it's unlikely Urban Harvest will cause nightmares, due to its hilariously inept climax. When the humongous corn creature shakes a screaming girl in its goo paws, the victim looks suspiciously like a Barbie doll". TV Guide awarded the film two out of five stars, praising the performances, and adding: "Against the odds, this horror series (initially based on a Stephen King short story) has actually improved over time to the point where this third installment is a creditable if far-fetched chiller".

title: Children of the Corn III: Urban Harvest


text:
Talk:Creationist cosmologies/Archive 1

What's this? Is the two column pro/contra presentation the newest invention? It for sure goes against normal policy, or am I confused here? --Pjacobi 15:07, 2005 Jan 31 (UTC)

 * this is just an expansion of the Views of Creationists and mainstream scientists compared page -- it's a new idea, but it's an attempt to place the two viewpoints side by side, to allow for point-by-point comparison, allowing for an npov description of two povs. Ungtss 15:47, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Not sure where to go with this page
The page is the sole surviving member of the Views of creationists and mainstream scientists compared deletion. I think it was spared because the format was changed into what you see now. It is my opinion that this page needs a lot of work. We should strive to have decent summaries of the ideas and decent scientific critiques of them. Perhaps we should remerge this page with Non-standard cosmology.

Joshuaschroeder 03:03, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * looks like it's well on its way to being another jpov, uncited personal-research essay. keep up the good work.  Ungtss 03:10, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Well, it certainly looks like you haven't added a lot to this page, nor do you offer any substantive critique. All par for the course, I guess. Joshuaschroeder 06:17, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * add? what could i possibly add to this marvel of well-crafted jpov bullshit?  perhaps i'm just tired of arguing with your ignorance.  Ungtss 15:01, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Or perhaps you don't know anything about the subject. Joshuaschroeder 15:04, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * if that were true, that would certainly make two of us, and make you the only one willing to exhibit your ignorance. sadly no.  i know of these things and know of their problems.  nobody will deny that these cosmologies have problems.  but mainstream cosmologies are even MORE ridiculous.  what's funny about you is, you think your ignorance is superior to everybody else's.  Ungtss 16:53, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * If you find it so problematic and are so sure of your superior familiarity with cosmologies both creationist and mainstream, why don't you edit the article? I'm happy to entertain your notion that "mainstream cosmologies are even MORE ridiculous", but I haven't seen any evidence that you are familiar with said "mainstream cosmologies". Joshuaschroeder 00:53, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Isn't Gravitational time dilation observable?
The effect of Gravitational time dilation should be observable if Humphreys is correct.

The magnitude of gravitational time dilations we see in the universe is tiny compared to what is required by Humphreys idea. Joshuaschroeder 15:30, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * I think this is wrong on two counts, Humphreys has us already emerged from the white hole, so we are no longer in a deep gravitational well.
 * This doesn't matter because the past view would necessarily be back to the white hole singularity. Just as looking into a black hole causes time-dilation, so does looking into a white hole. Joshuaschroeder 21:16, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * The types of dilation Humphreys is proposing is extreme only at or near event horizons, the fact that only minor time dilations have been observed, is that extreme dilations near event horizons would be very deeply red shifted.
 * The problem with this is that the event horizon would be very close by in conformal space. We should see the effect of the universe being only 6000 years old through the time dilation process. Joshuaschroeder 21:16, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Since there doesn't appear to be a massive white hole nearby, I've assumed that his apologia for this would be that it has disappated. That would seem to avoid any blue shift/time dilation issues.  The idea is that billions of years went by while the solar system was at the event horizon, and the young earth emerged from what was still a fairly massive white hole, into a universe billions of years old with light in transit to us.  The mass that made the curvature at the event horizon mild enough not to disrupt the solar system, would have to be several millions of solar masses, and would have to be nearby, within a few thousand light years.  Of course, it isn't.  When I mentioned this to Humphrey's a few years back, he did not seem to have considered this.  But if we grant Humphrey this aspect of his theory, I don't see where we would expect to see any significant time dilation.--Silverback 10:46, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
 * I see what you are saying, Silverback, but being spit out of a whitehole as described in Humphries theory puts the singularity seen in extrapolations of the redshifted universe as a result of a whitehole that contains the entire universe. It wouldn't manifest itself simply as a whitehole nearby as can be seen by transforming the coordinate system into Kurskal coordinates, but rather it would be the singularity we extrapolate. Joshuaschroeder 16:48, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * One of the criticisms of humphrey's theory was that stars should appear blue shifted if we are in a gravitational well. Correct me if I am wrong, I believe Humphrey's theory calls for us to have emerged from the white hole several thousand years ago, so we would no longer be in the gravitational well.  I will let this site a couple days, and then if no response, remove the criticism.
 * If we emerged from a white hole, the conformal diagram would have us able to peer back to the singularity. Joshuaschroeder 21:16, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * One serious objection that I don't see here, is that Humphrey's theory implies that the solar system emerged intact from the white hole within the last few thousand years. That implies that the curvature of space at the event horizon to be mild enough not to disturb the earth/sun orbital system.  It also implies that the "center of the universe" was in orbit about the milky way for millions  of years before the solar system emerged and after the emergence of the milky way itself, and that there should be evidence of the remnant of the massive white hole within a few thousand light years of earth.  Such a large mass should leave evidence of a significant recent disturbance in the solar neighborhood.  We see no such evidence.--Silverback 04:50, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * This is true. You can add this argument. Joshuaschroeder 21:16, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Horizon problem
This is the second time I've removed inclusion of the horizon problem. If anyone wants to make an argument for its inclusion, please make it here. Joshuaschroeder 14:13, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * Schoeder should stop being so revert-happy. He removed a lot more of the previous editor's changes than just the Horizon Problem.  And it does seem fair to note that creationists use a tu quoque argument about what seems to be a still-unsolved problem.138.130.201.204 16:46, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * I'm completely mystified by this. The horizon problem is well-explained on the Big Bang page and doesn't belong here. This is a page about creationist cosmologies, not a critique of the Big Bang. Joshuaschroeder 17:38, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * Well ask before vandalizing not after! It should be obvious even to you -- this was a section on current creationist responses, and one is the tu quoque point about the horizon problem.  There was even a link for a creationist article on that.  And of course Schroeder deceitfully deletes other responses in the process. 138.130.201.204 09:17, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * Careful with accusing others of vandalizing. JS's edit was not vandalizing. You may want to consider turning down the agression dial a notch.--FeloniousMonk 10:59, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * Your edits were not vandalizing, but all JS does is chop. Meanwhile he keeps blatant POVs in, and even undoes minor punctuation corrections in his bazooka-style edits.  He is also willing to call others "trolls" simply because they undermine his POV pushing. 138.130.201.204 12:40, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

To the anonymous contributor: I've reverted to the version of Joshuaschroeder. Your change doesn't make sense. Especially by presenting stuff which is not related at all to the article's lemma. This article is about creationist cosmologies. Problems in other cosmological models, most importantly in the standard model, must be included in those articles, but on a higher level of expertise than you are providing at the moment. Contrary to your believe, the "New Scientist" isn't a first rate scientific journal. It's just journalism. --Pjacobi 14:42, 2005 Mar 25 (UTC)
 * It is your POV that New Scientist doesn't count -- it is still a reference! But your justification for reversion is unjustified.  The section was "creationist repsonses", and some DO use the tu quoque, as shown by the link.  So it's going back in.
 * The reference doesn't matter: one can read about it in the non-standard cosmology article. As such it does not belong here.
 * Furthermore, there is blatant POV in other parts, e.g. "damaging critiques". NPOV should just present the critiques and let the reader decide whether they are damaging. And it is also NPOV to link to Humpreys's responses to his critics.138.130.201.204 02:20, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * New Scientist is included in the appropriate section in Non-standard cosmologies, it doesn't make any sense to include it here because none of the people who signed it had a creationist POV. Creationists using aging steady-staters to declare there is a "controversy" is like creationists using punctuated equilibrium to advocate that no animals evolved on Earth.

 * There may indeed be "blatant POV" in the article that needs to be removed. Please try to illustrate some of these here for consideration. Joshuaschroeder 14:24, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * 138.130.201.204, I've reworked your edits to line 4 in the article. The subject being discussed in the paragraph was YECs who claim to have alternatives to the Big Bang model, removing the mainstream science reaction and replacing it with cite of two secular scientists who also reject the big bang in line with YECs was a non sequitur. There are indeed many scientists, secular or otherwise who reject the big bang, but that is peripheral at best to the YEC's who reject the big bang. Careful with what you remove and what you select to replace it with. Edits like that can be perceived as favoring a particular POV by censoring the opposing POV. Since mainstream science's response to YEC alternatives is highly pertinent, I've added the statement of the NAS, attributed. Also, the link citing Arp and Lerner was malformed and misplaced. See: Cite_sources--FeloniousMonk 10:59, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Reworking is what should have been done by JS, rather than chopping. I will try to take note of your comments.  Also, I maintain that it's fair game to use Arp and Lerner to show that the big bang is not quite cut and dried, and we were careful to state that they still believed in billions of years, so it was not out of context. 138.130.201.204 12:40, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * I thought it was fair to put back the link to the article by the creationist astrophysicist. JS is not qualified in astrophysics, so he should not be allowed to dictate that certain creationist arguments are not allowed, especially by creationists far more qualified than he is.71.100.184.44 00:58, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

continued reversion attempts by annonymous user
I will continue to revert the revisions of the annonymous user until they can demonstrate the utility of their edits. The creationist argument against the "soft gap" theory is the only part of the inclusion I think may be worthy, but the reference given is opaque at best. We need a better explanation of what this objection means. Otherwise, every other edit by this user was terrible and was removed. Joshuaschroeder 07:09, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I will continnue to undo the censorship of this Schroeder who completely lacks scientific standing despite acting like he is the spokesman for the "scientific community", whatever that is. And who cares about Schroeder's opinion on whether something is terrible, when he clearly lacks understanding of the astronomical issues involved in things like the horizon problem.203.213.77.138 04:43, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * It's you lacking the understanding. We can do a straw poll anytime. Whether limited to contributors with a degree in physics or an unlimited one, I don't have many doubts your bold statement above will be proven false. Or we should proceed in Conflict resolution. --Pjacobi 08:01, 2005 Apr 4 (UTC)

Humphreys answer his critics
I removed the remark from the last item and put it in a separate paragraph [this may have simply been an oversight by the original editor].

I also put the actual URL where the repository of Humphrey's responses are located.

Finally, I will add some remarks about the difficulty of cosmological systems in general in an effort to lend at least a little parity to the page. Phantym 01:43, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Setterfield Balanced
I was surprised at the criticism aimed at Setterfield, since most of those issues are answered directly in his papers or on his page. I have included a description of this as well as a link.

 * Most of the issues are dealt with on his page by making nonsensical arguments. For example, the opacity of the star effects only the hydrostatic equilibrium, not the nuclear timescale. To claim that an opacity can result in the same observed steady state we see today is simply untenable from simple "dimensional arguments". Joshuaschroeder 13:12, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

 * Setterfield and Phantym make the claim that the scaling arguments he uses carefully balance the incredible effects that a change in the speed of light has on ordinary physics. However, this kind of analysis is the most prone to error because one can always find non-dimensional scaling to make one feel better (it's the old captain of the ship problem -- to get the characteristic speed of the boat, just divide the length of the ship by the age of the captain). If the speed of light is changing dramatically, there would be observed physical effects that cannot be accounted for just by looking at unrelated physical effects.

 * Quantized redshifts do not exist. See nonstandard cosmology for more. Joshuaschroeder 13:12, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Also, how in the world can you cite a 1983 source to attack Setterfield???? His report [as far as I can tell] was only published in 1987...

 * Setterfield has been trying since long before he published anything. Joshuaschroeder 13:12, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Phantym 02:13, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Ridiculous revert
I was disgusted to see that a mound of information,

 * there was no information, but there was a lot of misinformation and propaganda.

mostly simply allowing the reader to see what the various physicists had said in their own defense, was reverted.
 * physicists? Barry Setterfield is not a physicist. Russel Humphreys is a physicist in a field that is unrelated to cosmology.

Please read carefully the policies of wikipedia.
 * fact reigns supreme.

It is not our place to judge whether we happen to think a scientist's views are logical, that is not what we are here for. It is certainly not reasonable to remove an entier theory [as the reversion did].
 * The removal of an entire theory was not done.

Finally, to flatly say "Quantized Red shift doesn't exist" and refer me to an article that does not even discuss it is ludicrous. Physicists in the US, at Cambridge, and at Canada's National Research Council support it.
 * Baloney. Show me any paper on the totality of redshifts that shows quantization.

IT IS NOT OUR PLACE TO JUDGE things that publishing scientists do not agree on. That is arrogant and very much non-neutral.
 * The publishing scientists agree: Humpreys is a hack, Setterfield uneducated, and Halton Arp a has-been.

And it is absolutely ridiculous to remove a post simply indicating how a physicist answers his critics.
 * It is absolutely ridiculous to claim that the answers were not addressed originally.

Refer readers to the criticism, refer them to the responses, refer them to all the 'debunking' pages you want, but don't remove a vast array of information simply because you do not like it.
 * I will remove nonsense and lies because wikipedia should not support them.

 * We have to weight the sources, and a first, but usually telling, attempt gives the result that "Quantized Red shift" is not a topic of scholarly discussion in the field. See:
 * http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22Quantized+Red+shift%22&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en&btnG=Search
 * Same result on http://www.arxiv.org/find
 * Pjacobi 20:20, 2005 May 29 (UTC)
 * Well put Pjacobi. Joshuaschroeder 20:48, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

NPOV reminder
There was a horrid degree of non-neutral language in the entire article. Please remember that we are not here to judge whether we like a given scientists work.

It is certainly not POV to state that the age of the universe is constrained to a certain age in an article on cosmologies that would suggest otherwise. Each cosmology gives a mechanism for the obverved radioactivity, and to flat out state as a fact the very thing these scientists are objecting to with theories is far out of bounds.

 * Patently untrue. The cosmologies give mechanisms for their own guesses at reality, but do not state how observations of reality contradict their inaccurate ideas.

If you wish to state what ANOTHER scientist has said, or give other such disinterested remarks, that is another thing, but they should be written from a middle-distance.
 * The appropriate distance is to state that the creationist cosmologies are nonsense.

For example Setterfield...used fault techniques. is clearly not NPOV.

And it is most definitely not appropriate to simply remove relevant information, even if you do not like or agree with it. You cannot deny that Setterfield has answered his critics,
 * I am aware of Setterfield's "answers" in regards to criticisms that are incorrect. False information can be presented, but need not be.

you cannot deny that many scientists [not just creationists] believe that there is something strange going on with redshift,
 * I do deny that most scientists believe that nothing "strange" is going on with redshift.

 * And I suppose you are going to say that the 150 or so scientists signing an open letter suggesting this exact thing (mostly completely secular scientists with no particular religious axe to grind) are all chopped liver? Open letter.
 * One of the signers, just as an example, is Herman Bondi. He just happens to be a recipient of The Royal Astronomical Society highest award, are you going to suggest that he is also a hack? Phantym 23:50, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

 * With all do respect to Hermann Bondi who has done wonderful work with accretion, his work on cosmology is nonsense and everyone in the community accepts that. He's one of the last of the old guard who stick to their guns and do not keep up with advancements in the field. Hoyle was an example of another one who was like that. As is often the case in science, old ideas "die" (and I do mean die, literally) hard. People like Bondi represent a connection to past ideas before the scientific revolution, but their inability to answer their critics causes them to be discredited in the field. The "Open letter" was signed by no one who is active in the cosmology field, but was signed by the usual cast of grumpy characters and a number of scientists who have never even studied the idea. This is not a statement that holds any validity in the scientific community, nor can it be called evidence of a controversy any more than the time cube can be called evidence that Einstein is wrong. Joshuaschroeder 14:09, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

you cannot deny that Gentry claims certain things.
 * Gentry is a poor example of an arguer when it comes to science. Why should we deny his claims? Because they are not scientific.

If you wish to quote those who have criticized a theory, or give a link to the page that criticized it, fine, but removing perfectly relevant information is poor form.
 * They aren't theories in the scientific sense.

Phantym 20:19, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

 * Your edit concentrates on "Why"-questions, but physical cosmology, as all physics, is not in the business of answering "Why"-questions. It is in the business of creating theories that (a) are compatible with current observations, (b) make predictions for future observations (falsifiability) and (c) are as simple as possible (Occam's razor). The standard Lambda-CDM model scores high on all three accounts. The "Why"-questions may be puzzling, but they are not a problem of the theory but of human curiosity. --Pjacobi 20:28, 2005 May 29 (UTC)

 * No, my edit concentrates on removing judgmental language and not claiming that any of the theories are correct or incorrect. To the extent that these cosmologies predict results different from their standard model counterparts, they differ in more than a "why" context. Gentry's model, for example, differes in prediction to the standard model on many counts, including mineral composition in quasars and existence of far objects. Furthermore, this is an article on Creationist cosmologies, and hence both the Why and the What are relevant.

 * No, your edit is about inserting creationist pap into an article describing the pap. Gentry's "model" doesn't exist. Joshuaschroeder 20:56, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Gentry's Halo Universe
I read the refered to paper. Is this supposed to be a model? Gentry puts in a new variable (vacuum energy density) and rederives some basic cosmology equations with this new variable. He makes no predictions other than to say that this new parameter allows (without explanation) sollutions to "problems" (which don't exist) with the standard model as of 1998. So, what are we to make of this? Has Gentry tried to innovate, keep up to date, or continue to pursue this idea? It doesn't seem to be. I'm not sure he accepts it as a model. Setterfield and Humphreys at least are trying to maintain their model, but as with the enigmatic polonium halos (now disavowed by most creationist organizations), Gentry simply runs through a weird argument that isn't true. Should it be included? I'm not sure. I'll have to read more about it. But certainly the edit Phantym tried is not going to cut it. Joshuaschroeder 21:04, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

 * Gentry's model is portrayed in a 2003 paper, followed by another in 2004, how is that not "keeping up with it." And since he EXPLICITLY mentions predictions in the paper, I do not see how you can claim it does not make predictions. Perhaps you are reading the wrong paper? He wrote a paper in 1998 or so which was not a completely cosmology, but was fleshed out to a full cosmology in 2003.  Finally, when are you gonig to learn that it is not YOUR opinion on his results that matters? We are not here to judge; we are here to report information. Phantym 21:47, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

 * The information is about full-fledged creationist cosmologies. We need to gather the information appropriately to present in a non-biased way. I will continue to read the bits by Gentry to see how we would include his stuff in the work (or if we should at all). I will go back and read his 2003 and 2004 ideas. Joshuaschroeder 00:03, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

 * I have completed reading Gentry's papers. I have to conclude that this is not a creationist cosmology as defined by the article because it does not deal with the problem associated with young earth creationism. It is in actuality a hybrid of the quasi steady state idea of Einstein's with an artificial "expansion" term introduced associating a kind of tired light with the cosmological constant. Gentry doesn't dispute distances nor does he dispute the speed of light being constant. He disputes the Big Bang. The cosmology, if it is to be presented should be on the non-standard cosmologies page. However, it is already well dealt with in the ideas about tired light and about quasi-steady state and the criticisms of those ideas apply equally to his ideas. Joshuaschroeder 00:15, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

 * Concluding Gentry's cosmologies do not count as Creationist is ludicrous. As quoted from a single  paper of his:
 * This led to my discovery that the locally observed, spherically symmetric galactic redshift distribution is unique and hence that a universal Center exists nearby. I identify it as the location of God's eternal throne, as per Hebrews 8-10 and Revelation 20. Finally, I describe my Cosmic Center Universe model that reproduces eight of BBC's major predictions.
 * This approach necessarily means I believe there are flaws in the current evolutionary paradigms, and that part of revealing God's glory of creation means exposing the scientific flaws in these paradigms as well as promoting those evidences of creation that affirm the Genesis record. This is the philosophical basis of my work, and I realize it is a minority view, both scientifically and within the Christian community
 * CBR is shown to be gravitationally redshifted blackbody cavity radiation from an anciently-created outer shell of galaxies (see note 59) that circumscribes those of the more recently-created (6,000 yr.) visible universe [How is a cosmology that shows our and local galaxies as being around 6000 years old not creationist??????

Dispute Resolution: RFC
I will be seeking first an RFC, and if necessary further steps, in seeking that this page realign to one that shows a NPOV.

Recently this obvious NPOV is found in reversions which have removed WHOLESALE the following:

 * A short discussion listing the many paradoxes and concerns cosmologists have had over the past 50 years to give an indication of the difficulty any theory will have in accounting for all observed phenomena. This is meant to temper the series of criticisms that follow.

 * Irrelevent to the subject at hand. We are here to describe creationist cosmologies and show the common criticisms leveled against them, not to criticize mainstream cosmology except where the creationist cosmology explicitly does so. We have a section on criticizing astronomy as is, and so any information with regards to this should be included there. Joshuaschroeder 00:25, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

 * Two isntances in which information was removed discussing a scientist's own responses to specific criticisms
 * In actuality, the one bit of information was inaccurately reported and patently false. In the other (with regards to Humphreys) there was no need to include the duplicate material already covered in the response section. Joshuaschroeder 00:25, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

 * 'Patently false'? How can it be patently false that I report someone else has something posted on a website.  Are you claiming that I made up the entire quote? Surely not.  If you disagree with the quote, then too bad.  Phantym 05:37, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

 * Just because something is found on the internet does not make that thing worthy of inclusion in the encyclopedia. We are here to report on the main creationist cosmologies and report the main criticisms of those cosmologies. We aren't writing a page about "responses of those supporting creationist cosmologies to their critics". That said, if something is glaringly wrong in the criticism of the creationist cosmology in question, it should easily be made known in the full text. To say that "dimensional analysis" solves Setterfield's problems is obviously patently false. It doesn't because he is comparing two dynamically disparate processes in order to come up with a response that he likes (it just so happens that c^2 is in the denominator of the opacity while E=mc^2 is in the numerator of nuclear fusion calculations -- but numerology of Setterfield's is not what this article is about, it's about his decaying speed of light idea. Joshuaschroeder 14:16, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

 * Two links showing where the scientists involved give a collection of their responses to other concerns. In no way can it be considered legitimate to remove the resource to readers.
 * These resources are referenced by means of other groups (AiG in particular, but also Setterfield). Resources/references should be placed in an external references sited section of the article. Joshuaschroeder 00:25, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

 * C'mon, to state that Humphreys claims to defend his theory and then REMOVE the information is ludicrouse.Phantym 05:37, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
 * There is a reference to Humphreys defense, though it is to a different website. They information is simply duplicate that you posted. Joshuaschroeder 14:16, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

 * An entire cosmology was removed, and then it was claimed that no such cosmology was removed. It can be plainly seen in the edits that an entire section on Gentry's model existed and now has been removed, twice.
 * This cosmology, as seen above, is actually not a creationist cosmology in the sense that it doesn't have any creationist import. The only connection seems to be that it is proposed by a creationist. Joshuaschroeder 00:25, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

 * It is a creationist cosmology in that it supports a young cosmos. Your claim that it does not count as a creationist cosmology is a thinly veiled effort to cover yourself for removing it wholesale and then claiming you hadn't. Phantym 05:37, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Um, no it doesn't. Gentry makes claims external to his idea that this "supports a young universe", but nowhere in the proposed idea does he state that such is the case. He is simply trying to discredit the Big Bang. There is a big difference between that and a creationist cosmology. Joshuaschroeder 14:16, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

 * Please just admit that you are trying to cover your butt after recklessly deleting an entire cosmology in a hasty revert. I accused you of removing an entire cosmology, you denied it flat out [without any other disclaimer]. You did this [deleted it] twice, and then I showed you specifically the cosmology you removed, from then on you have tried to get around this.

 * In this latest effort you suggest that this is not a Christian cosmology when it certainly is on several points.
 * 1. It is blatantly anthropocentric [the cosmic center is right in our backyard]
 * 2. It is presented by a scientists completely devoted to creationism
 * 3. One of its aim is to debunk the big-bang, hence showing secular science's lack of self-criticism.
 * 4. Most damning, it could not be more clear from the first few pages of this article by Gentry, where he discusses the recently created universe being made in the last 6000 years.

 * A reversion to obvious judgmental language that itself goes outside of NPOV. In other words, I removed the NPOV from statements such as "Gentry used faulty methods" cahnging them to "...accused Gentry of using faulty methods." And that edit was reverted! There are many, many cases of this.
 * But it is a plain fact that Gentry used faulty methods. I'm sure Gentry disputes this, but he's not a good scientist and his judgements about the fact of his faulty methods as witnessed by previous encounters he has had with science shows the problems he has -- the judgement of the cosmology stands on its own. Joshuaschroeder 00:25, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

 * Once again, it is not your job to judge whether he used faulty data. It is completely honest to state someone else's allegation, but it is not at all NPOV for you to presume to speak for all wiki-editors. Phantym 05:37, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually, as a scientist it is my job, but that's not the point here. The point is that when a hack like Gentry makes a claim that's easily refuted, there is no reason not to include that refutation in the encyclopedia. Joshuaschroeder 14:16, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Then your refutations are both POV and original research, neither being allowed. If you think Gentry and other scientists are out to lunch, post what OTHER critics have suggested as well as Gentry's response and leave yourself on the porch.

In addition to the above egregious abuses of wikiettiquette [which always supports the inclusion of relevant material rather than reverting the wholesale], the following statements have appeared on the talk page, showing that the authors clearly have a flawed sense of NPOV.

 * there was no information, but there was a lot of misinformation and propaganda.

The above is one posters summary of my reporting what other scientists have said and giving readers access to their own responses.

 * I will remove nonsense and lies because wikipedia should not support them.

The above was given as an excuse for removal of all the extra information that was given. That information was largely comprised of stating what scientists had to say in response to criticism. Why it is okay to claim what critics say as facts while removing any reference to what the scientist had to say in response is beyond me.

The greatest indictment of this clear misconcept of NPOV comes in the following quote:

 * The appropriate distance is to state that the creationist cosmologies are nonsense.

In addition to the above there is also the repeated unfactual accusation that these theories are not scientific when they meet the requirements given on wikipedia's own page on the matter. They describe present evidence and make predictions.

Given the hostile nature of the editors of this article, and their propensity for calling everyone who does not agree with them idiots [including professors at Cambridge University, Canada's National Research Center, and secular universities in the US], as well as discounting evidence as recent as 2003 for trends they claim do not exist at all, I am seeking RFC, in the hopes that others can make known to these editors that there actions are not in the spirit of wikipedia, which is dedicated to all sides being given a fair opportunity to state their claims without the 'editors' judging them.

 * Claims of creationists are stated in this article and the claims they make are refuted. The counter-arguments that are made by the creationists to the arguments are a tit-for-tat reapportionment of ideas that is something to be eschewed in an encyclopedia article. We should have a simple statement of what the creationist believes and what the criticisms are and that is it. Further information can be incorporated into either of these parts. Joshuaschroeder 00:25, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Phantym 05:37, 30 May 2005 (UTC)The information was relevant and allowed a reader to easily retrieve both sides of the issue. Removing relevant information in this way is the thing that should be eschewed.

Morton 1983
Interestingly I found the following page, part of which purports to be from one of the authors of the cited work. The page describes various theories, and partway down one of the authors of the Morton et. al. paper writes that General relatively is based on the concept that the speed of light is constant.

He also makes similar claims attempting to indicate that having a variable speed of light is incompatible with relativity. However, Breitenberger, The Status of the Velocity of Light in Special Relativity, Mernin's work, and most clearly [for the general relativity case] Singh's article suggest otherwise. In particular Singh describes how the results of General Relativity can be derived by simply allowing for some maximum velocity for any physical object...it is traditional, based on observation, to ascribe this the speed of light, but the derivations do not require it.

Moving toward a compromise
I am attempting to meet a reasonable compromise here. I have reverted to a previous edition and then removed some of my own POV edits.

I am also putting a todo list here so that I did not have to delete outright many currently statements.

Reversion to an older version
I tried to work with the current version of the article, but found it impossible to do since there was a lot of misinformation, bad editorializing, and some things that were just plain false (like redshifts being caused in FRW-Cosmology by a cosmological constant). I have included all the external links refered to by the creationist editors in the external links and I have included Gentry's model which is a derivative of Humphrey's bounded universe. Gentry's universe just happens to be bounded by an external shell similar to modern geocentrism. It would be good to include this in here as well. Joshuaschroeder 21:59, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * I'm not sure what your intention was when you reverted this article. I'm not sure exactly which sections you had a problem with. I have reverted, partially, by pasting paragraphs from the previous version into yours. You must admit that the first line atleast seems less accusatory now. -- Ec5618 15:19, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

 * Your edits and additions for the most part are fine. I clarified a bit, especially in the intro paragraph for arguments still employed. Most of what I had issue with were references to "quantized redshifts" (which is a fringe-astronomy fantasy unrelated to creationism) and to disclaimers about such things as radioactivity and the "responses" of creationists to their critics. Joshuaschroeder 16:48, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Revert to EC's June 4 (with some revision)
I have reverted the article back to EC's July 4th edit, before massive POV were introduced. There was little to be salvaged from the later rewrites for myriad reasons:

1. Rampant POV
 * Not true.

2. Rampant uncited and/or original reserach
 * Again, not true

3. Discussion at length about mainstream science and/or its viewpoint on creationist cosmologies rather than the creationist cosmologies themselves.
 * Since mainstream science is the way cosmology is described, it needs to be there.

4. From the talk pages it is clear that some editors have an inaccurate viewpoint of the subject matter. For example, Gentry's cosmology is certainly not a modification of Humphrey's. One has a white-hole singularity instantiated at the beginning of time [the other does not].

 * The modification of the Friedmann Equations by Gentry has the same effect as the white hole.

Gentry's is not bounded (he only states the visible universe is bounded.

 * Actually, Humphreys only says that the visible universe is bounded too.

Gentry and Humphreys rely on different forces to cause time distortion.

 * Not technically. The forces are both claimed to be part of a gravitational initial point.

Another example is the remarks about quanitzed redshift. It is true that red shift is caused in mainstream science not by the cosmological constant but by the expansion of space-time (which is linked to the cosmological constant, but does not rely upon it), but this miswrite by one author does not call for the editorial response it received since the idea remains the same: that modern astronomy does not understand redshift correctly.

 * What is this supposed to mean? Redshift quantization is not a documented idea, it is cited as a non-mainstream critique and that is discussed.

Furthermore, disparaging quantized redshift [or flat out saying it does not exist] flies in the face of research done by scientists at Oxford [Bill Napier] the Royal Observatory at Edinburgh [Bill Guthries] and most recently the Canadian National Science Research Center [M. Bell, 2003]. Napier and Guthrie (the latter who has worked as an astronomer at the observatory for over 20 years) published research showing a quantization of redshift that had a p-value less than 1 in 10 million!

 * This does not address the main point made in nonstandard cosmologies which is that sky surveys do not show the quantization.

To simply dump this down the trash chute as "Fringe" or deny its existence altogether shows either a deep bias or an ignorance of the subject matter.

 * We don't need to entertain the ignorance of certain editors.

I have made some changes to the revision. For those keeping score, 5 of these corrections are, loosely, removing of POV on one side while the other 4 remove POV on the other side:

a) I have removed some discussion of the big bang (including some misplaced laudatory remarks...the big bang actually got the CBR wrong by orders of magnitude...and was "fixed" afterward.

b) Creationists do not discuss the Horizon problem as much as others (in particular redshift issues), so I have truncated that discussion

c) I have removed every criticism that is not accompanied by citation. Wikipedia is not original research. There has been a stated need for this documentation for over two weeks.

d) Removed the peacock expression lauding Setterfield's cosmology. Yes, it explains quantized redshift, but the reader who cares can discover that on his own.

e) Removed unneeded discussion of non-creationist, non-mainstream cosmologies.

f) Removed the "It is unclear what effect these constants not being constant has." The statement is probably true, but is POV. That paragraph already contains suitably neutral language.

g) Removed Peacock expressions from beginning of Gentry's discussion for the same reason Setterfield's

h) Removed the list of cosmic phenomena explained by Gentry's model in favor of three sentences describing its relation to new and future experiments.

i) Removed obvious POV from "light created in transit" paragraph.

-Phantym

 * I'm not very happy with your change, but not concerned enough to blindly revert.
 * But please do all of us a favour and learn something about Wiki editing and style, you always badly garble the Wiki source of the article.
 * Pjacobi 21:25, 2005 Jun 20 (UTC)
 * The change is unacceptable. I'm going to revert. Joshuaschroeder 21:36, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Phantym's proposed changes
Editor Phantym is under the impression that the creationist cosmologies described in this article are somehow "scientific". This is far from the case. Not only are all these cosmologies considered bunk by nearly every competent cosmologist who looks at them, they are fraught with the same problems that most nonstandard cosmologies show. We are not apologists for creationist hacks who toot their own horns without being scientific in their pursuits. Humphreys, Gentry, and Setterfield are all poor excuses for scientists and have created some poor excuses for explanations of cosmological phenomenon. Nevertheless, this is an encyclopedia where all ideas no matter how crackpot should be described if they exist. We describe creationist cosmologies to show what YECs do to try to combat the very real problem they have of light-travel times. It is a cute aside to the creation-evolution controversy but has nothing to do with science, astronomy, or cosmology except that these creationists have to find justifications for their, frankly, fringe beliefs that jive with their limited understanding of the subject. Wikipedia is NPOV, but it is not accomodating. The skeptical tone of the article is completely warranted and needs to remain if people are to get an accurate understanding of these cosmologies. Complaints that criticisms aren't well "cited" and that there is too much "POV" and "original research" in the article are plainly untrue. The editor would be well-advised to read wikipedia policies on these subjects before making such claims. In any case, the article as it stands now describes each of the ideas well. Any more drastic changes that Phantym wishes to be made should be put forward to RfC or perhaps peer review. Joshuaschroeder 10:23, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * Calling scientists who work at the Canadian National Research Center, Oxford, the British Royal Observatory, and Los Alamos National Labs "hacks" gives a fair understanding of Joshuaschroeder's ability to edit in a POV manner.

 * What is drastic about requiring an editor to refrain from his own original commentary rather than cite outside material? It is not "drastic" it is wikipedia etiquette.  Given that Joshuaschroeder's touts a self-congratulatory award on his user page lauding his efforts to "keep creationist bias out of wikipedia," I think it is clear which editor should be under the microscope here. Phantym 4 July 2005 18:54 (UTC)

 * Unfortunately not all scientists are only producing works which can be considered scientific, especially when they step out of their field of competence. Paulo Correa has a PhD in microbiology (or something like that), but that doesn't give credibility to Aethermetry. Anatoly Timofeevich Fomenko is a professor of statistics at an important university, but his application of statistics to the historical scieneces (New Chronology (Fomenko)) didn't get professional applause. --Pjacobi July 4, 2005 18:59 (UTC)

Reversion again
Once again the article is in a state of terrible POV, mostly due to Joshuaschroeder, who has the gall to say "With all do respect to Hermann Bondi who has done wonderful work with accretion, his work on cosmology is nonsense..." This is an wikipedian editor's statement about a scientist who has earned the Royal Academy's highest award, and shows just how much this editor chooses to allow his own attempts at original critique dominate an article.

If you wish to attack the theories presented, please summarize documented criticism with citation, as per standard wikipedian practice, not simply deluge the article with your own commentarty.

I will continue to remove remarks that are original scientific commentary. This is not POV, it is standard wikipedian ettiquette.

I  hate  reverting like this, but after all the mess caused by Joshuashroeder's edits, it is hard to do anything else.

Phantym 4 July 2005 18:39 (UTC)

 * I've reverted your reversion as more editors are happily working on the other version to improve it. But I've kept the for now. Please give us your reasons to belief that the article doesn't conform to NPOV. Misconduct of other editors is in itself not such a reason. --Pjacobi July 4, 2005 18:53 (UTC)

 * Oops, we had an edit conflict. Now part of the reason emerges. Then, why you don't remove the comments, instead of reverting whole-sale to version, which doesn't even get the basic formatting right? --Pjacobi July 4, 2005 18:53 (UTC)

Biased
I must say I came to this article hoping for an enlightening review of the topic, which I can happily say is the case for most articles on this excellent site. But not this article. The page is inherently biased and any attempts to reform something biased are inherently biased. I do not support creationism or any other philosophy but seek out as much information on various topics as I can, as it intrigues me. I am thus very dissapointed at the lack of information and comparison of opposing views. I believe the current article should be dropped and a new one made from scratch, with the people who worked on the original article and the reformations of said article leaving it alone for unbiased individuals to handle.

 * Thanks for your comments, but the vague nature of them makes it very hard for editors to make improvements. While a wholesale trashing of an article is always something that can be done (remember, it's okay to be bold in editting) it would be nice to know exactly what in the article was biased. Excluding editors from articles is generally not something that is done at Wikipedia. Joshuaschroeder 11:48, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

 * I didn't say to exclude anybody, but quite a few people have edited the page and disagree with each other strongly, I simply meant if they let one unbiased person take over the article, it would be more uniform and accurate, and once he/she was done with the first version allow others. As for biased parts of the article, here is a little of what I thought was biased: The use of the word Pseudoscientific, which is obviously not what supporters of the theory call it, thus it is biased; the phrase and reject all mainstream scientific knowledge at odds with their views is not necessarily true; the habit of ending each topic by trying to disprove it; general opposition of the creationist view; the edits the re-edits and the de-edits; all show that the page is biased. Perhaps a simple reorginazation would suffice to show that the editor is not supportive of one side, as the article currently is.

 * pseudoscience is a very well understood and defined word. It isn't biased, it simply means that the scientific community judges the endeavor to be without scientific basis. Since, by definition, the word is about the scientific community and not supporters it is the essence of neutral.

 * "reject all mainstream scientific knowledge at odds with their views" -- you think this isn't the case, or at the very least isn't necessarily true. However, that statement is the essence of creation science's conceit. So I fail to say where you cam up with this idea.

 * Ending each topic by trying to disprove it -- science isn't in the business of "proof" or "disproof". There is simply evidence that is available. If you're looking for "proof" try mathematics.

 * general opposition to the creationist view -- can you be more specific? Keep in mind that NPOV does not mean Wikipedia is going to be apologetic.

 * Supportive of one side -- this is perhaps the strangest of your accusations. It is assuming that there are "two sides". But there really aren't "sides" per se: there are just creationists who make claims about science that are wrong.

 * ---Joshuaschroeder 12:22, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

 * What do you mean "creationists who make claims about science that are wrong?" Is this supposed to be a statement about criticism of evolution or geology, or of the theory of scientific study in general?  Could you elucidate? Dan Watts 15:14, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

 * I think what he's saying is that science operates within it's own realm of creating theories and then evaluating them based on evidence, whereas creationists do not operate in an evidence-based realm. Therefore this isn't a debate between two sides, because both parties are operating in totally seperate spaces.  Real debate requires that both sides be connecting and talking about the same things; creation-evolution controversy doesn't qualify because creationists are naturally talking about ideas originating out of faith whereas science should operate in a solely evidence-based realm.  That is what I think he means.  --Laura Scudder | Talk 17:25, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

 * So when evidence (hard, physical) is used in a criticism of a scientific theory is it (by definition) not a creationist claim? Is that your (or your understanding of Joshua's) position? Dan Watts 18:14, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

What I was saying was the following: creationist made claims about science in this article. Those creationists' claims are shown to be wrong. Joshuaschroeder 18:42, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Is it fair to put in questions about the stability of Oort clout (and possibly Kupper belt) objects against interactions with the galactic arms (roughly every 25 million years), or questions concerning the (absence of) evidence of spallation products (from comet - cosmic ray interaction) seen in spectra of comets, or questions concerning the maximum age of visible lunar craters if the lunar basalt has anything like terrestrial viscosity (and, no, the talk.origins discussion of that problem is not conclusive)? Dan Watts 20:13, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

 * No, these claims are not about cosmology but rather about space science and planetary science. Joshuaschroeder 00:16, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

title: Talk:Creationist cosmologies/Archive 1


text:
Category:Coahuila

The Mexican state of Coahuila, on the Mexican Plateau and in the Sierra Madre Oriental.

title: Category:Coahuila


text:
Hydria

The hydria (ὑδρία; : hydriai) is a form of Greek pottery from between the late Geometric period (7th century BC) and the Hellenistic period (3rd century BC). The etymology of the word hydria was first noted when it was stamped on a hydria itself, its direct translation meaning 'jug'.

It is a type of water-carrying vessel, but it had many other purposes. As time progressed the hydria developed into many forms, some of which were smaller or of a different material. These variants were decorated with detailed figures to represent Greek mythological stories, as well as scenes of daily life, providing extensive insight into Ancient Greek culture and society.

Function
Originally, the hydria's purpose was for the collection of water, but it also held oil and the votes of judges. The design of the hydria allowed for the efficient collecting and pouring of liquids as it possessed three handles: two horizontal ones at its sides and a vertical one on its back. The shape of the hydria was altered in the 5th century BC from having a wide body and broadly rounded shoulders, to a design that incorporated flatter shoulders that met the body at an angle. This was done to ease the task of carrying water to and from the home and places of gathering. The vessel itself could be carried, and the vertical handle allowed the person to pour it easily, which aided in tasks such as diluting wine in a krater.

The hydria also acted as a funerary urn containing ashes. This function was primarily associated with the hadra hydria. The funerary ceremony was conducted by a royal official who recorded the name of the deceased, their origin, the date of burial and a general inscription. The bronze hydria acted as a prize in tournaments and competitions. This is evident from the painted scenes on vases that illustrate victors carrying a hydria as a reward and inscriptions that identified the bronze hydria as a prize. The high value of a bronze hydria meant it could also function as a dedication to sanctuaries.

Hydria
The earliest form of the hydria was a large, round shouldered, full-bodied vessel. This shape was commonly used for black-figure pottery during the 6th century BC. Its characteristics included a well-delineated shoulder, an articulated neck and an overhanging ring-shaped (torus) lip. The hydria was manufactured with three handles: two horizontal ones at its sides and a vertical one on its back. It ranged from 33 cm to 50 cm in height and it was glossed on the outside and not on the inside.

Kalpis
The kalpis became popular during the 5th century BC and became the preferred vessel of choice for red-figure painters. The kalpis differed from the hydria as it was typically smaller in size, ranging from 25 cm to 42 cm, and its body, shoulder and neck had a continuous curve. Another term associated with a small hydria is hydriske (also called hydriskos, plural hydriskai) which is a diminutive for small hydria. Its vertical handle was cylindrical, attached at the lip rather than the rim, and possessed an in-curved rim compared to the torus lip of the earlier hydria.

Hadra hydria
This style developed during the Hellenistic period and consisted of a wide squat neck, low pedestal and flaring base. Rather than being cylindrical, the hadra hydria's vertical handle was ribbed and its side handles were gently curved. They were named hadra hydria after the suburb "Hadra" in Alexandria, where they were first discovered in the 19th century. There were two sub-classes of hadra hydria, one categorised by a thick layer of whitewash applied for Polychrome decoration, a feature that is absent from the other forms of the hydria. These were produced in Egypt and intended to reside in tombs. The second class of hadra hydria are named "Clay Ground". These differed from whitewashed hadra hydria as they used dark brown or black paint for decoration, which was directly applied to the vessel's surface. "Clay Ground" hadra hydria were produced in Crete rather than Egypt.

Bronze hydria
Developed from the 4th century BC onwards, the bronze hydria was a prized form of the hydria. It had a shallow neck and a capacious body. It was highly polished and was often decorated with silver inlays. Bronze hydria were also decorated with objects and patterns. For example, one bronze hydria depicted Dionysus and a satyr. Unlike other forms of the hydria, the bronze hydria had a lid, highlighted from the traces of soldering and the presence of rivet holes found on its rim. Having a lid meant the bronze hydria could act as a funerary urn. There are over three hundred and thirty bronze hydria known, including both complete and incomplete vessels.

Body
The process began by "throwing" (from the Old English word thrownاا which means to twist or turn, ) the body of the hydria on a potter's wheel, starting with a large ball of clay. This clay ball would be formed into a tall cylinder and then expanded outwards through the use of the potter's hands. With one hand on the outside and one on the inside, the potter's hands would press together and form the upward curve of the hydria. At the shoulder level, the potter would smooth the clay inwards, forming the base of the neck. The shoulder was then smoothed out with a rib tool to remove any throwing striations. The body was then cut off the potter's wheel and set aside to harden.

Neck/mouth/lip
The neck, mouth and lip were thrown right side up, through a similar process of expanding a smaller lump of clay which was then thinned out and shaped. Once a short cylinder was formed, the clay was then angled outward to form the lip of the hydria. The lip was rounded with a sponge and the neck, mouth and lip were cut off the wheel and left to harden. Similar to the neck amphora, the neck walls of the hydria were also tapered, starting thicker at the base and becoming thinner towards to lip.

Joining
Once the body and neck had dried, they had to be joined. This was completed through the application of a slip between the shoulder and the neck. The potter would place his hand inside the hydria where the shoulder joined the neck and apply the slip which bonded both the neck and the shoulder. The joining was smoothed out to remove any signing that the sections had been joined.

Turning
Once the vessel had dried to a leather hard stage, the potter inverted the hydria and began to turn it to form its base into its parabolic shape.

Foot
The foot was thrown upside down, through a small ball of clay which was spread outwards. The potter would use his thumbs to shape the walls of the foot whilst using his fingers to round the edge of the foot, giving it a Torus shape. It was cut off the potter's wheel and left to dry. Once dried, it was attached to the rest of the hydria through the application of a slip.

Handles
The hydria has three handles, two horizontal ones at its sides and a vertical one on its back. The horizontal handles were pulled from balls of clay which were then attached below the shoulder on the hydria. The handles were cylindrical and upturned. The vertical handle was also pulled from a ball of clay but it was centre-ridged and oval shaped. It was attached at the lip and shoulder of the hydria. The handles were then burnished by hand rather than on the potter's wheel.

Bronze hydriai
Beginning with two sheets of bronze, the thin walls of the bronze hydria are hammered and shaped. Bronze hydrias with a pronounced shoulder were hammered in two parts. First, a metal disk was shaped to form a neck. Then, a tube flaring at both ends was welded to where the shoulder met the neck of the hydria. The other parts of the hydria; the foot, handles and mouth were not hammered, but instead cast and attached through welding or soldering. For its decoration, the bronze hydria was polished, as it created a bright sheen and lustre, but silver inlays were also used for its decoration. Its handles were sometimes decorated with patterns or objects, such as palmettes.

Contribution and examples
The contribution of the hydria is displayed through its decoration and inscriptions. Its decoration often depicted mythological stories and scenes of daily life. The inscriptions provide information such as the potter's name, date and purpose of the hydria. Inscriptions can increase scholarly understanding of Ancient Greek culture, and its development over time, as well as help create a chronological timeline of the development of pottery in Ancient Greece. Decorations can also highlight the particular use of the hydria. For example, bronze hydrias decorated with figures relating to love were gifts to brides, whilst those decorated with Dionysus, were used by men at gala dinner parties.

Caputi hydria
The Caputi hydria provides insight into the role of working women in classical Athens. Due to the lack of written sources surrounding working women in Athens during the 5th century BC, it was noted that women in trades were non-existent and confined to household duties. However, the Caputi hydria depicts women decorating a vase in a pottery workshop, although scholars have debated whether it was a metal workshop. Notwithstanding the academic debate, scholar such as G. M. A. Richter and J. D. Beazley agree this proved the existence of female painters, and women in trades.

Inscribed hadra hydria
Inscriptions noted on several hadra hydria in the Metropolitan Museum of Art contain the names of artists, potters, important historical figures and dates. These inscriptions are important as they provide contextual information that helps to establish the date of the pottery which contributes to its chronological timeline. Important figures that existed during that time are also highlighted which can fill information that written sources cannot provide. For example, on one hadra hydria, the inscription translates to "Year 9; Sotion son of Kleon of Delphi, Member of the Sacred Embassy announcing the Soteria; by Theodotos, agorastes". From this inscription, a date can be approximated, which was 212 BC. insight into the political offices that existed is also provided, as well as the names of government officials.

The Friedlaender hydria
This 6th century black-figure hydria is decorated with multiple mythological reliefs. On the body of the hydria, it shows Hercules struggle with the Triton (otherwise known as Nereus or the Old Man of the Sea) with Poseidon and Amphitrite watching on the side. Two more figures reside on the left of Hercules, identified as Hermes and Athena, longtime companions of Hercules. On its shoulder, five figures are about to engage in battle. The central figure of the five is a herald, whilst the figures on either side are dressed with Corinthian helmets and armour, holding Boeotian shields. The shoulder relief is reflecting the mythological battle between Hector and Ajax that occurred in the Iliad. The central figure represents the herald Idaios, who tries to interrupt the battle. The reliefs on the Friedlaender hydria and its shape help to place it chronologically in the 6th century BC and establish a timeline for different series of hydrias.

title: Hydria


text: Category:Nyckelharpa players

title: Category:Nyckelharpa players


text:
Richard Airey, 1st Baron Airey

General Richard Airey, 1st Baron Airey, (April 1803 – 14 September 1881), known as Sir Richard Airey between 1855 and 1876, was a senior British Army officer of the 19th century.

Background
Born at Newcastle upon Tyne, Northumberland, Airey was the eldest son of Lieutenant General Sir George Airey and his wife Catherine Talbot, daughter of Richard Talbot and Margaret Talbot, 1st Baroness Talbot of Malahide.

Military career
Airey was educated at the Royal Military College, Sandhurst, and entered the army as an ensign of the 34th (Cumberland) Regiment of Foot in 1821. He became captain in 1825, and served as aide-de-camp on the staff of Sir Frederick Adam in the Ionian Islands (1827–1830) and on that of Lord Aylmer in North America (1830–1832). In 1838 Airey, then a lieutenant colonel, went to Horse Guards as assistant adjutant-general. In 1847, he was appointed assistant quartermaster-general, an appointment he retained until 1851. From 1852 to 1854 he was Military Secretary to the commander-in-chief, Lord Hardinge.

In 1854 he was given a brigade command in the army sent out to the East, from which, however, he was rapidly transferred to the onerous and difficult post of Quartermaster-General under Lord Raglan, in which capacity he served through the campaign in the Crimean War. He was reported upon most favourably by his superiors, Lord Raglan and Sir James Simpson and for his performance was made a major general in December 1854 and was awarded a Knight Commander of the Order of the Bath (KCB). Following Raglan's instructions, Airey issued the fateful order for the Charge of the Light Brigade. He was also criticised for incompetence in the provision of supplies and transport. Airey demanded an enquiry on his return to England, which took place under Lord Seaton and which cleared him completely, but he never recovered from the effects of persecution from his critics.

In 1855 he returned to London to become Quartermaster-General to the Forces at home. In 1862 he was promoted to lieutenant general, and from 1865 to 1870 he was Governor of Gibraltar, being appointed a Knight Grand Cross of the Order of the Bath (GCB) in 1867. In 1870 he became Adjutant-General to the Forces at Headquarters, and in the following year attained the full rank of general. On 29 November 1876, on his retirement, he was elevated to the Peerage of the United Kingdom as Baron Airey, of Killingworth in the County of Northumberland. During 1879–1880 he presided over the celebrated Airey Commission on army reform.

Family
In 1838, he married his cousin, Harriet Mary Everard Talbot (d. 28 July 1881), daughter of James Talbot, 3rd Baron Talbot of Malahide. Their only daughter, Katherine Margaret Airey (d. 22 May 1896), married Sir Geers Cotterell, 3rd Baronet. Airey died at the house of Lord Wolseley, at Leatherhead, Surrey, when his title became extinct.

title: Richard Airey, 1st Baron Airey


text:
Z (My Morning Jacket album)

Z is the fourth studio album by psychedelic rock band My Morning Jacket. This collection features a much spacier and more polished sound than previous releases, making heavy use of synthesizers throughout and incorporating reggae and dub influences. The heavy reverb that was a defining characteristic of the band's prior recordings is largely absent. The songs on the album are more focused and shorter compared to the band's previous albums.

A double-live album, Okonokos, was recorded at the end of the Z Tour and was released on September 26, 2006; it features live versions of eight of Z's 10 songs.

In 2012, Rolling Stone ranked the album at number 457 on its list of The 500 Greatest Albums of All Time. The magazine has also ranked the album 31st on its list of the 100 best albums of the 2000s and 23rd of the 40 greatest stoner albums ever.

Background and production
In September 2003, My Morning Jacket released its third album It Still Moves. It was the band's first album to be released by ATO Records. It Still Moves was well received by critics and peaked at number two on the Heatseekers Albums in the United States. During the subsequent tour, guitarist Johnny Quaid and keyboardist Danny Cash quit the band on amicable terms, and were replaced by guitarist Carl Broemel and keyboardist Bo Koster. Drummer Patrick Hallahan said that while the arrival of new members put the band in an awkward position, it was also a liberating experience. "We thought, 'Let's take ourselves out of our element.'"

For the next My Morning Jacket album, the band members wanted to experiment with unique arrangements and a greater usage of musical soundscapes when compared to their previous albums. Vocalist Jim James said the band went out of their comfort zone, and decided to record the album at the remote Allaire Studios in the Catskill Mountains instead of in their hometown of Louisville, Kentucky. According to bassist Tom Blankenship: "We had been talking for years about really locking ourselves in when we did an album, and now there was no excuse but to be in the studio all the time. You'd wake up and have breakfast and grab your coffee and walk into the control room."

Z was the first My Morning Jacket album to have a professional producer. James had previously produced every album, which he said was out of pride. Before the recording sessions began, James met producer John Leckie, who was known for his work with bands such as Pink Floyd and Radiohead. Leckie was also a tape operator on the George Harrison album All Things Must Pass, one of James' favorite albums. James said Leckie's perspective as an outsider played a pivotal role in the production of the album. According to James: "Sometimes when everybody in the band is just there, you know, people don't want to hurt anyone's feelings, or you might think that it was a good take because everyone is tired. We really learned the value of having another ear there."

Composition
This album was seen by reviewers as a shift in the musical genre of the band and vocal style of James, in part due to working with John Leckie and the inclusion of genres such as reggae on "Off the Record".

Digital rights management
The CD was one of the more high-profile releases in 2005 featuring digital rights management technology to prohibit owners from playing the music on a computer or creating digital copies. United States pressings of this CD contain MediaMax CD-3 by SunnComm. The band's manager, Mike Martinovich, expressed their dissatisfaction with the technology and it was abandoned on subsequent releases. The band themselves provided information on their website about how to bypass the software, and also offered to burn individual copies of the album for fans, free of copy-protection software.

Critical reception
The album was the second highest rated album of 2005 according to Metacritic, behind Sufjan Stevens' Illinois; the album has a total score of 90 out of 100.

Technically, both Z and Illinois were tied for the highest Metacritic rating in 2005, with a score of 90 each. However, the score for Illinois was based on a larger overall number of reviews: 40, compared to 31 for Z.

Online music magazine Pitchfork Media placed Z at number 146 on their list of top 200 albums of the 2000s, calling it My Morning Jacket's OK Computer. In 2012, Rolling Stone ranked the album at number 457 on its list of The 500 Greatest Albums of All Time. The magazine has also ranked the album 31st on its list of the 100 best albums of the 2000s and 23rd of the 40 greatest stoner albums ever. In March 2022, the album ranked at number 1 on WFPK Louisville's "Top 500 Albums of the 2000's Countdown" which was conducted by a public poll.

Track listing
All songs written by Jim James, except where noted:
 * 1) "Wordless Chorus" – 4:12
 * 2) "It Beats 4 U" – 3:46
 * 3) "Gideon" – 3:39
 * 4) "What a Wonderful Man" – 2:25
 * 5) "Off the Record" (James, Tom Blankenship, Patrick Hallahan) – 5:33
 * 6) "Into the Woods" – 5:21
 * 7) "Anytime" – 3:56
 * 8) "Lay Low" – 6:05
 * 9) "Knot Comes Loose" – 4:02
 * 10) "Dondante" – 8:01

The U.S. and Japanese pressing of the album contains the B-side "Chills"; digital copies include the other b-side "How Could I Know" (length 5:27) as well.

Personnel
My Morning Jacket
 * Tom Blankenship – bass guitar
 * Carl Broemel – guitar, saxophone on "Dondante"
 * Patrick Hallahan – drums
 * Jim James – vocals, lead and Rhythm guitars, and production
 * Bo Koster – keyboards

Additional musicians and technical personnel
 * Andrew Bird – strings, and whistles on "Gideon", "Into the Woods", and "It Beats 4 U"
 * John Leckie – production
 * M. Ward – acoustic guitar and choirs on "Into the Woods"

Artwork
 * Katie Beach
 * Guy Burwel
 * Nicolai Denchev
 * Mike Fulkerson
 * Brandon Jones
 * Kathleen Lolley

Release history
†This edition includes the bonus track "Chills"

title: Z (My Morning Jacket album)


text:
Talk:Apple Bottoms

Boots with the furrrrr the whole club was looking at herrrrr
What about the boots with the fur? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.235.221.33 (talk) 02:55, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Sucks
This article SUCKS. It reads like an advertisement written by a college freshman. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.185.60.226 (talk) 09:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Off-topic about Nelly
Hey I removed the shit about Nelly. This article is about Apple Bottoms and thus does not need to include any of Nelly's accomplishments--Koolahawk (talk) 00:52, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Apple Bottoms. 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/20140717041256/http://stylophane.com/wwdmay06zoom.html to http://stylophane.com/wwdmay06zoom.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:03, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Apple Bottoms