text:
Ryan Campbell

Ryan John Campbell (born 7 February 1972) is an Australian former cricketer who represented both Australia and Hong Kong internationally. He is the current head coach of Durham, on a contract covering the 2023 to 2025 seasons.

Campbell was born in Perth. He made his debut for Western Australia during the 1995–96 season, and initially played as a specialist batsman, with Adam Gilchrist keeping wicket. He later replaced Gilchrist as wicket-keeper following the latter's elevation to the national team in the late 1990s. Having first played for Australia A during the 1997–98 season, Campbell made his ODI debut in January 2002, against New Zealand. His only other appearance at that level came in December of the same year, against Sri Lanka. He was substituting for Gilchrist on both occasions. Campbell made his last appearances for Western Australia during the 2005–06 season, subsequently being replaced by Luke Ronchi.

After the conclusion of his domestic career in Australia, Campbell began working in the media, as a sports presenter on radio and cricket commentator on television. In 2008, he played a single season with the Ahmedabad Rockets, a franchise in the unsanctioned Indian Cricket League (ICL). Campbell moved to Hong Kong in 2012, to play for and coach the Kowloon Cricket Club. In 2016, aged 43, he was included in the Hong Kong national team's squad for the 2016 World Twenty20 in India. He made his Twenty20 International (T20I) debut for Hong Kong against Zimbabwe in the 2016 World Twenty20 on 8 March 2016. At the age of 44 years and 30 days, he became the oldest player to debut in a T20I match.

Personal life
Campbell was born in Osborne Park, a suburb of Perth, Western Australia, and played WACA grade cricket for Bayswater-Morley, Scarborough, and Joondalup. He has Hong Kong Chinese ancestry through his grandmother, with one of his great-grandfathers being born in Kowloon. Campbell's wife and son were also born in Hong Kong. His brother in law is Andrew Heffernan, who competed in the equestrian events at the 2012 Summer Olympics. Campbell suffered from depression during his playing career, and in 2001 contemplated retiring early to focus on his health, eventually deciding to continue playing. He is a supporter of Beyond Blue, an Australian mental health advocacy group.

Australia
Campbell was inducted into the Australian Cricket Academy in 1994, and made his first-class debut for an academy team in April 1995, playing against the New Zealand Cricket Academy. His debut for Western Australia came in February 1996, during the 1995–96 season of the Mercantile Mutual Cup (the national one-day competition). Campbell initially played as a specialist batsman, with Adam Gilchrist serving as wicket-keeper. He did keep wicket on his Sheffield Shield debut (against Tasmania in November 1996), which came in Gilchrist's absence, but spent the remainder of the season as an opening batsman, partnering with Mike Hussey. Campbell was one of only three WA players to appear in every Sheffield Shield match during the 1996–97 season, and finished with 672 runs, behind only Mike Hussey and Justin Langer amongst his teammates. Against Victoria, he scored a maiden first-class century, making 113 runs from 106 balls. He brought up his century in only 86 balls, making it the fastest hundred of the season.

During the 1997–98 Sheffield Shield season, Campbell was again among the leading batsmen for WA, scoring 726 runs from eleven matches. He scored three centuries during the season, including 177 against New South Wales, and also kept wicket in four games while Adam Gilchrist was on national duty. In August 1998, Campbell was selected for Australia A for the first time, touring Ireland and Scotland with the team. Later in 1998, he also played for Australia A in a one-off day-night game against the senior Australian team, opening the batting with Michael Slater. Campbell made further appearances for Australia A the following year, all in the one-day format, appearing in three games against the touring Sri Lankans and a five-game series against India A, which was played at the Woodley Cricket Field in Los Angeles.

Campbell made career-best scores in both the first-class and one-day formats during the 1999–00 season, both of which came against Queensland. He made 203 from 222 balls in a Pura Milk Cup fixture at the WACA Ground, helping WA win by an innings and 257 runs, and later scored 108 runs from 85 balls in the final of the Mercantile Mutual Cup. Campbell finished the 1999–00 Pura Milk Cup with 885 runs from ten matches, which was the most for WA and behind only Matthew Elliott and Darren Lehmann overall. However, his output was much reduced the following season, as he struggled with a knee injury that eventually required surgery.

In January 2002, Campbell was selected to play for Australia in an ODI against New Zealand, after Adam Gilchrist withdrew from the team to spend time with his newborn son. He stumped Mark Richardson off the bowling of Shane Warne in New Zealand's innings, and later scored 38 runs from 52 balls opening the batting with Mark Waugh, eventually being dismissed by Daniel Vettori. Campbell made his second and final ODI appearance for Australia in December of the same year, against Sri Lanka. He again came into the team as a replacement for Gilchrist, who was suffering from groin and knee injuries. He batted lower in the order, at number six, and made 16 runs from 18 balls.

Campbell had been named in Australia's initial 30-man squad for the 2003 World Cup in South Africa, but did not make the final cut. He was one of four wicket-keepers in the initial squad, alongside Gilchrist, Brad Haddin, and Jimmy Maher, with Gilchrist and Maher eventually being selected for the World Cup. Campbell played his last matches for Australia A in April 2003, against South Africa A, and remained Western Australia's primary wicket-keeper until his retirement in January 2006, midway through the 2005–06 season.

India
In September 2008, Campbell signed with the Ahmedabad Rockets franchise for the second season of the Indian Cricket League (ICL), a BCCI-unsanctioned predecessor to the Indian Premier League (IPL). In his third game of the tournament, against the Mumbai Champs, he scored 92 not out from just 51 balls, and was named man of the match. Two games later, against the Royal Bengal Tigers, he scored another half-century, 66 not out from 35 balls. Campbell finished the season with 237 runs from eight appearances, which was behind only Murray Goodwin for his team. His strike rate of 160.13 was behind only Imran Nazir among players scoring 200 runs or more.

Hong Kong
Campbell first played in Hong Kong as early as 1997, when he represented Australia at the Hong Kong Sixes. In January 2016, after meeting the residency qualifications for Hong Kong, he was named in the national squad for the 2016 World Twenty20 in India. Aged 44, the oldest player at the tournament, Campbell played in all three of his team's matches (against Zimbabwe, Afghanistan, and Scotland), scoring 36 runs and taking two wickets. His best performance came against Afghanistan, where he scored 27 runs from 24 balls and took 2/28 from four overs.

Coaching career
Campbell spent time as an advisor to the Hong Kong national team in 2010, helping the side prepare for the cricket tournament at the 2010 Asian Games. He moved to Hong Kong permanently in April 2012, taking up a position as a player-coach at the Kowloon Cricket Club. In May 2013, he was also appointed as the Hong Kong national team's specialist batting coach.

In January 2017, Campbell was appointed head coach of the Dutch national team. He took over from Chris Adams (the interim head coach) in April 2017. Both his wife and son are Dutch citizens.

In April 2022, while in the UK, Campbell suffered a cardiac arrest, and was in intensive care in a coma. He was discharged from Royal Stoke University Hospital three weeks later.

In October–November 2022, Campbell supervised Netherlands' highly praised campaign at the Men's T20 World Cup; after progressing to the Super 12, they defeated South Africa to secure automatic qualification for the next T20 World Cup in 2024.

In December 2022, Campbell was appointed head coach of Durham on a three-year contract to the end of the 2025 season, succeeding James Franklin.

Media career
In 2007, Campbell joined Nova 93.7 as the sport reporter on the breakfast show with Nathan and Nat, replacing Tim Gossage. He has also commentated Ford Ranger One Day Cup matches for Fox Sports, and provided commentary for Network Ten's coverage of the Indian Premier League.

title: Ryan Campbell


text:
Cystolith

Cystolith (Gr. "cavity" and "stone") is a botanical term for outgrowths of the epidermal cell wall, usually of calcium carbonate but sometimes of silicon dioxide also, formed in a cellulose matrix in special cells called lithocysts, generally in the leaf of plants.

Cystoliths are present in certain families, including in many genera of Acanthaceae. Plants in the family Urticaceae, known as stinging nettles, also form leaf cystoliths, but only during their later flowering and seed setting stages. Other examples include Cannabis and other plants in the family Cannabaceae, which produce leaf and flower cystoliths, and Ficus elastica, the Indian rubber plant of the family Moraceae.

From a 1987 article on cystolith development and structure:

"... The cystolith is a spindle-shaped body composed of concentric layers of longitudinally oriented cellulose microfibrils associated with pectins and other cell wall polysaccharides. At maturity it is heavily impregnated with calcium carbonate. Some cystoliths also contain silicon and are covered in a sheath of siliceous material. Cystolith formation occurs at the tip of a peg that grows in from the lithocyst wall. Evidence from ultrastructure suggests that the lithocyst cytoplasm transports carbohydrates to the cystolith via Golgi vesicles, and organizes the deposition of cystolith cellulose microfibrils via a system of microtubules lying beneath the plasma membrane that envelopes the growing cystolith. The peg is composed of heavily staining amorphous material like that of an apoplastically sealed cell wall. It is incapable of supporting the migration of lanthanum ions into the cystolith."

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

title: Cystolith


text:
Talk:French colonial flags

French Society of Strasbourg to Rhine Navigation
I am highly interested by this flag, which relates to a city (Strasbourg) I am originally from. This flag and corresponding text appears to have been added on 16 August 2015. Yet, it is the first time I am seeing this flag and I must admit I am quite surprised of its existence. With a quick search on Google through images, I have not seen any other webpage, including the corresponding French Wikipedia page, mentioning this flag. Going further, I see on this flag the baselstab, which is the symbol of Basel city, in Switzerland. Should be inferred from this that the French Society of Strasbourg to Rhine Navigation was an entity existing from 1871-1919 when France had no access to the Rhine river, and used Switzerland as a neutral intermediary to have an harbor on the river? Thank you so much for enlightening me (and potentially other readers), and do not hesitate to cite a corresponding source to the article as this element seems to me to be far from obvious. Maybe @Oganesson007 ? Thanks! Leo.hoerter (talk) 05:00, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:French colonial flags


text: User talk:86.132.14.251

title: User talk:86.132.14.251


text:
Dopplerite

Dopplerite is a naturally occurring organic substance found in amorphous, elastic or jelly-like masses, of brownish-black color, in peat beds in Styria and in Switzerland. It is tasteless, insoluble in alcohol and ether, and is described by James Dwight Dana as an acid substance, or mixture of different acids, related to humic acid. It is named after the physicist and mathematician Christian Doppler.

title: Dopplerite


text:
Séminaire Nicolas Bourbaki (1950–1959)

Continuation of the Séminaire Nicolas Bourbaki programme, for the 1950s.

1950/51 series
1. Armand Borel, Sous-groupes compacts maximaux des groupes de Lie, d'après Cartan, Iwasawa et Mostow (maximal compact subgroups)

2. Henri Cartan, Espaces fibrés analytiques complexes (analytic geometry, fiber bundles)

3. Charles Ehresmann, Sur les variétés presque complexes (almost-complex manifolds)

4. Samuel Eilenberg, Exposition des théories de Morse et Lusternick–Schnirelmann (Morse theory, Lusternik–Schnirelmann category)

5. Luc Gauthier, Quelques variétés usuelles en géométrie algébrique (algebraic geometry)

6. Jean-Louis Koszul, Cohomologie des espaces fibrés différentiables et connexions (Chern–Weil theory)

7. Jean Delsarte, Nombre de solutions des équations polynomiales sur un corps fini, d'après A. Weil (Weil conjectures)

8. Jacques Dixmier, Anneaux d'opérateurs et représentations des groupes (operator algebras, representation theory)

9. Roger Godement, Théorie des caractères dans les groupes unimodulaires (unimodular groups)

10. Pierre Samuel, Théorie du corps de classes local selon G. P. Hochschild (local class field theory)

11. Laurent Schwartz, Les théorèmes de Whitney sur les fonctions différentiables (singularity theory)

12. Jean-Pierre Serre, Groupes d'homotopie (homotopy groups)

13. Armand Borel, Cohomologie des espaces homogènes (cohomology of homogeneous spaces of Lie groups)

14. Samuel Eilenberg, Foncteurs de modules et leurs satellites, d'après Cartan et Eilenberg (homological algebra)

15. Marc Krasner, Généralisations non-abéliennes de la théorie locale des corps de classes (local fields)

16. Jean Leray, La résolution des problèmes de Cauchy et de Dirichlet au moyen du calcul symbolique et des projections orthogonales et obliques (Dirichlet problems and Cauchy problems for partial differential equations, symbolic calculus)

17. Pierre Samuel, Sections hyperplanes des variétés normales, d'après A. Seidenberg (algebraic geometry, hyperplane sections, normal variety)

1951/52
1. Jacques Dixmier, Quelques résultats d'Harish-Chandra, I (representation theory of semisimple groups)

2. Roger Godement, Les travaux de Hecke, I (modular forms)

3. Jacques-Louis Lions, Les travaux de Deny en théorie du potentiel (potential theory)

4. Pierre Samuel, Variété de Picard et groupe de Severi, d'après A. Néron (Picard variety and Néron-Severi group)

5. Jean-Pierre Serre, Utilisation des nouvelles opérations de Steenrod dans la théorie des espaces fibrés, d'après Borel et Serre (Steenrod operations)

6. Dov Tamari, Machines logiques et problèmes de mots. I : Les machines de Turing (theory of computation)

7. Jean Braconnier, Sous-algèbres sous-invariantes d'une algèbre de Lie et tour des dérivations, d'après E. Schenkman (Lie algebras)

8. Jean Dieudonné, Groupes de Lie algébriques (Travaux de Chevalley) (algebraic groups and their Lie algebras)

9. Jacques Dixmier, Quelques résultats d'Harish-Chandra, II (see 50)

10. Roger Godement, Les travaux de Hecke, II (see 51)

11. André Lichnerowicz, Variétés localement kählériennes (local Kähler manifolds)

12. Dov Tamari, Machines logiques et problèmes de mots. II : Problèmes de mots indécidables (see 55)

13. Armand Borel, Les espaces hermitiens symétriques (hermitian symmetric spaces)

14. Pierre Dolbeault, Le théorème de Riemann-Roch sur les surfaces kählériennes compactes, d'après K. Kodaira (Riemann-Roch theorem for Kähler surfaces)

15. Nathan Jacobson, Le problème de Kuroš (Kurosh problem)

16. Bernard Malgrange, Equations de Sturm–Liouville (Sturm–Liouville equations)

17. André Néron, L'arithmétique sur les variétés algébriques, d'après A. Weil (diophantine geometry)

18. Laurent Schwartz, Les travaux de L. Gårding sur les équations aux dérivées partielles elliptiques (partial differential equations)

1952/53
1. François Bruhat, Représentations induites des groupes localement compacts (induced representations of locally compact groups)

2. Alexander Grothendieck, Produits tensoriels topologiques et espaces nucléaires (Topological tensor products and nuclear spaces)

3. Paul Jaffard, Les corps quasi-algébriquement clos, d'après S. Lang (quasi-algebraic closure)

4. Jean-Pierre Serre, Cohomologie et fonctions de variables complexes (sheaf cohomology, several complex variables)

5. André Weil, Variété de Picard et variétés jacobiennes (Picard variety and Jacobian variety)

6. Henri Cartan, Mémoire de Gleason sur le cinquième problème de Hilbert (Hilbert's fifth problem)

7. Roger Godement, Travaux de Hecke, III (see 51)

8. Jean-Louis Koszul, Relations d'équivalence sur les courbes algébriques ayant des points multiples, d'après M. Rosenlicht (generalized Jacobians)

9. Michel Lazard, Groupes analytiques en caractéristique 0 (formal groups)

10. Jean-Pierre Serre, Cohomologie et arithmétique (diophantine geometry?)

11. René Thom, Sous-variétés et classes d'homologie des variétés différentiables (homology theory of smooth manifolds)

12. Jacques Dixmier, Fonctions sphériques, d'après R. Godement (spherical functions)

13. Roger Godement, Travaux de Hecke, IV (see 51)

14. Robert Lattès, Application de la théorie des semi-groupes à l'intégration d'équations aux dérivées partielles (semigroup and partial differential equations)

15. Jean-Pierre Serre, Espaces fibrés algébriques, d'après A. Weil (fiber bundles, algebraic geometry)

16. André Weil, Sur la théorie du corps de classes (class field theory)

1953/54
1. Henri Cartan, Fonctions et variétés algebroïdes, d'après F. Hirzebruch (algebroid functions, algebroid varieties)

2. Robert Pallu de la Barrière, L'existence de sous-espaces stables, d'après J. Werner (invariant subspaces)

3. Pierre Samuel, Les fonctions holomorphes abstraites de Zariski (abstract holomorphic functions)

4. Laurent Schwartz, Solution élémentaire d'une équation aux dérivées partielles à coefficients constants d'après B. Malgrange (fundamental solutions)

5. Jean-Pierre Serre, Travaux d'Hirzebruch sur la topologie des variétés (topology of algebraic varieties)

6. René Thom, Sur les variétés-bords (cobordism)

7. Roger Godement, Cohomologie des groupes discontinus (group cohomology of discrete groups)

8. Alexander Grothendieck, La théorie de Fredholm (Fredholm theory)

9. Jean-Claude Herz, Caractérisation des caractères des groupes finis, d'après R. Brauer (character theory of finite groups)

10. Jean-Louis Koszul, Les variétés jacobiennes généralisées, d'après M. Rosenlicht (generalized Jacobians)

11. André Néron, Le lemme d'Enriques-Severi, d'après O. Zariski (algebraic geometry, Enriques-Severi lemma)

12. Jean-Pierre Serre, Faisceaux analytiques (coherent analytic sheaf)

13. Pierre Cartier, Représentations des groupes de Lie, d'après Harisch-Chandra (representation theory of Lie groups)

14. Bernard Malgrange, Fonctions moyenne-périodiques, d'après J.-P. Kahane (mean-periodic functions)

15. Katsumi Nomizu, Quelques résultats en géométrie différentielle des espaces homogènes (differential geometry of homogeneous spaces)

16. Pierre Samuel, Travaux de Zariski sur le 14° problème de M. Hilbert (Hilbert's fourteenth problem)

17. Jean-Pierre Serre, Représentations linéaires et espaces homogènes kählériens des groupes de Lie compacts, d'après Borel et Weil (Borel-Weil theorem)

1954/55
1. Marcel Berger, Groupes d'holonomie des variétés à connexion affine (holonomy groups)

2. Pierre Cartier, Développements de fonctions arbitraires suivant les fonctions propres d'un opérateur différentiel (eigenfunction expansions)

3. Paul Jaffard, Anneaux d'adèles d'après Iwasawa (adele rings)

4. André Néron, Variétés abéliennes, d'après A. Weil (en introduction à l'exposé n° 106) (abelian varieties)

5. Jacques Riguet, Calcul différentiel libre, d'après Fox (free differential calculus, knot theory)

6. Pierre Samuel, La jacobienne d'une courbe algébrique, d'après W. L. Chow (Jacobian variety)

7. François Bruhat, Structure des algèbres de Lie semi-simples (Semisimple Lie algebras)

8. Jean-Louis Koszul, Formes hermitiennes canoniques des espaces homogènes complexes, d'après Atiyah (complex homogeneous spaces)

9. Michel Lazard, Lois de groupes et analyseurs (formal groups)

10. Jacques-Louis Lions, Problèmes aux limites relatifs à des équations de type elliptique (elliptic boundary value problems)

11. Jean-Pierre Serre, Le théorème de Brauer sur les caractères, d'après Brauer, Roquette et Tate (Brauer's theorem on induced characters)

12. Jacques Tits, Groupes semi-simples complexes et géométrie projective (complex semisimple groups and projective geometry)

13. Alexander Grothendieck, Réarrangements de fonctions et inégalités de convexité dans les algèbres de von Neumann munies d'une trace (function rearrangements and von Neumann algebras)

14. André Blanchard, Le plongement des variétés de Hodge dans des espaces projectifs complexes, d'après K. Kodaira (Hodge variety)

15. Henri Cartan, Sur un mémoire inédit de H. Grauert : "Zur Theorie der analytisch vollständigen Räume" (analytically complete spaces)

16. Pierre Cartier, Effacement dans la cohomologie des algèbres de Lie, d'après Hochschild et Koszul (Lie algebra cohomology)

17. Jacques-Louis Lions, Espaces de Beppo-Levi et quelques applications (Beppo-Levi spaces)

18. Yozo Matsushima, Pseudo-groupes de Lie transitifs (pseudogroups)

19. Jacques Tits, Sous-algèbres des algèbres de Lie semi-simples, d'après V. Morozov, A. Malcev, E. Dynkin et F. Karpelevic (semisimple Lie algebras)

1955/56
1. Jean-Paul Benzécri, Théorie des capacités, d'après G. Choquet (analytic capacity in potential theory)

2. Armand Borel, Groupes algébriques (algebraic groups)

3. François Bruhat, Prolongement des sous-variétés analytiques, d'après W. Rothstein (analytic subvariety)

4. Jacques Dixmier, Travaux de Malgrange sur les équations aux dérivées partielles elliptiques (elliptic partial differential equations)

5. Paul Germain, Les équations du type mixte et le problème de Tricomi (Tricomi equation)

6. Henri Cartan, Théorie spectrale des C-algèbres commutatives d'après L. Waelbroeck (spectral theory, commutative C*-algebras)

7. Roger Godement, Représentations induites des groupes de Lie, d'après Bruhat (induced representations of Lie groups)

8. Paul Jaffard, Travaux de Krull sur les anneaux de Jacobson (Jacobson rings)

9. Dominique Ruyer, Extensions résolubles des corps de nombres algébriques, d'après Iwasawa (solvable extensions of number fields)

10. Pierre Samuel, Travaux de Shimura et Taniyama sur la multiplication complexe (complex multiplication)

11. François Trèves, Thèse d'Hörmander, I (partial differential equations)

12. Roger Godement, Représentations induites des groupes semi-simples (induced representations of semisimple groups)

13. Michel Hervé, Travaux de Köcher sur les formes modulaires (automorphic forms)

14. Jean-Pierre Serre, Théorie du corps de classes pour les revêtements non ramifiés de variétés algébriques, d'après S. Lang (class field theory for unramified coverings of algebraic varieties)

15. René Thom, Les singularités des applications différentiables (singularity theory)

16. François Trèves, Thèse d'Hörmander, II (see 130)

17. André Weil, Multiplication complexe des fonctions abéliennes (complex multiplication of abelian functions)

1956/57
1. Henri Cartan, Espaces fibrés analytiques, d'après Grauert (complex manifolds)

2. Claude Chevalley, Le théorème fondamental de la multiplication complexe (Démonstration de Eichler) (complex multiplication)

3. Gustave Choquet, Existence et unicité des représentations intégrales au moyen des points extrémaux dans les cônes convexes (Choquet theory)

4. Jacques Dixmier, Travaux de Kadison sur les invariants unitaires (unitary invariants of operator algebras)

5. Alexander Grothendieck, Sur le mémoire de A. Weil : "Généralisation des fonctions abéliennes" (moduli of vector bundles)

6. Armand Borel, Travaux de Mostow sur les espaces homogènes (homogeneous spaces)

7. François Bruhat, Travaux de Harish-Chandra (representation theory)

8. Roger Godement, Introduction aux travaux de A. Selberg (automorphic forms)

9. Pierre Samuel, Travaux de Rosenlicht sur les groupes algébriques (algebraic groups)

10. Jean-Pierre Serre, Critère de rationalité pour les surfaces algébriques, d'après K. Kodaira (rational surfaces)

11. Gustave Choquet, Les travaux de Nash et Kuiper sur le plongement isométrique des variétés riemanniennes dans l'espace euclidien (embedding theorems)

12. Jacques Deny, Les deux aspects de la théorie du potentiel (potential theory)

13. Alexander Grothendieck, Théorèmes de dualité pour les faisceaux algébriques cohérents (coherent duality)

14. Bernard Malgrange, Variétés analytiques réelles, d'après F. Bruhat, H. Cartan et B. Malgrange (real analytic geometry)

15. André Weil, Sur le théorème de Torelli (Torelli theorem)

1957/58
1. Claude Chevalley, La notion de correspondance propre en géométrie algébrique (proper morphisms)

2. Marcel Guillaume, Les tableaux sémantiques du calcul des prédicats restreint (semantic tableaux in predicate calculus)

3. Jean-Louis Koszul Fibrés vectoriels sur les courbes elliptiques, d'après Atiyah (vector bundles on elliptic curves)

4. Serge Lang, Familles algébriques de jacobiennes, d'après Igusa (Jacobian variety)

5. John Tate, WC-groups over p-adic fields (Weil-Châtelet groups for local fields)

6. René Thom, La classification des immersions, d'après Smale (immersions)

7. Claude Chevalley, La théorie des fonctions holomorphes de Zariski. Application au théorème de connexité (Zariski holomorphic functions, Zariski connectedness theorem)

8. Jean Dieudonné, Extensions de représentations linéaires de groupes de Lie, d'après Hochschild et Mostow (representation theory of Lie groups)

9. Harish-Chandra Some applications of invariant differential operators on a semisimple Lie algebra (invariant differential operators)

10. Laurent Schwartz, La fonction aléatoire du mouvement brownien (Brownian motion)

11. Jacques Tits, Les "formes réelles" des groupes de type E6 (real forms of E6)

12. Jean Braconnier, Sur les groupes de Lie compacts opérant dans une variété compacte, d'après G. Mostow (transformation groups)

13. Pierre Cartier, Dualité des variétés abéliennes (duality of abelian varieties)

14. A. Kolmogorov, Dimension linéaire des espaces vectoriels topologiques (linear dimension of topological vector spaces)

15. Bernard Malgrange, Théorème de Frobenius complexe (complex Frobenius theorem)

16. Goro Shimura, Fonctions automorphes et variétés abéliennes (automorphic functions and abelian varieties)

17. André Weil, Modules des surfaces de Riemann (moduli theory of Riemann surfaces)

1958/59
1. Michel Demazure, Structure du groupe orthogonal, d'après T. Tamagawa (orthogonal group)

2. Albrecht Dold, Les foncteurs dérivés d'un foncteur non-additif (derived functors)

3. Roger Godement, Les fonctions zêta des algèbres simples, I (zeta-function of a simple algebra)

4. Michel A. Kervaire, L'homotopie stable des groupes classiques d'après R. Bott. Applications (Bott periodicity theorem)

5. François Norguet, Problème de Levi et plongement des variétés analytiques réelles, d'après H. Grauert (Levi problem, real analytic geometry)

6. Jean-Pierre Serre, Classes des corps cyclotomiques, d'après K. Iwasawa (Iwasawa theory)

7. Jacques Dixmier, Solution négative du problème des invariants, d'après Nagata (Hilbert's fourteenth problem)

8. Roger Godement, Les fonctions zêta des algèbres simples, II (see 171)

9. Friedrich Hirzebruch, A Riemann-Roch theorem for differentiable manifolds (Riemann–Roch theorem for smooth manifolds)

10. Bernard Malgrange, Unicité du problème de Cauchy, d'après A. P. Calderón (Cauchy problem)

11. Friedrich I. Mautner, Théorie des idéaux dans certaines algèbres d'un groupe (ring theory)

12. René Thom, Travaux de Milnor sur le cobordisme (cobordism theory)

13. Pierre Cartier, Vecteurs analytiques, d'après E. Nelson (analytic vectors for group representations)

14. Alexander Grothendieck, Géométrie formelle et géométrie algébrique (formal geometry and algebraic geometry)

15. Jean Leray, Résidus (residue calculus for several complex variables)

16. Jacques-Louis Lions, Equations de Navier–Stokes (Navier–Stokes equations)

17. Jean-Pierre Serre, Corps locaux et isogenies (isogeny)

18. André Weil, Adèles et groupes algébriques (adelic algebraic groups)

1959/60
1. Jacques Deny, Formes et espaces de Dirichlet (Dirichlet forms, potential theory)

2. Albrecht Dold, Structure de l'anneau de cobordisme, d'après les travaux de V. A. Rokhlin et de C. T. C. Wall (cobordism theory)

3. Adrien Douady, Cohomologie des groupes compacts totalement discontinus, d'après Tate (group cohomology for profinite groups)

4. Alexander Grothendieck, Technique de descente et théorèmes d'existence en géométrie algébrique. I : Généralités. Descente par morphismes fidèlement plats (descent (category theory), faithfully flat morphisms)

5. Jean-Louis Koszul, Travaux de B. Kostant sur les groupes de Lie semi-simples (semisimple groups)

6. Georges Reeb Sur les feuilletages analytiques (analytic foliations)

7. Shiing-Shen Chern, Les hypersurfaces dans l'espace euclidien (hypersurfaces, differential geometry)

8. Jean Dieudonné, Les groupes simples déduits des algèbres de Lie simples complexes, d'après C. Chevalley (Chevalley groups)

9. Alexander Grothendieck, Technique de descente et théorèmes d'existence en géométrie algébrique. II : Le théorème d'existence en théorie formelle des modules (formal moduli)

10. Jacques-Louis Lions, Sur les théorèmes d'interpolation (interpolation theory)

11. Paul Malliavin, Calcul symbolique dans quelques algèbres de Banach (symbolic calculus in Banach algebras)

12. Jean-Pierre Serre, Rationalité des fonctions zêta des variétés algébriques, d'après Dwork (local zeta-functions)

13. Pierre Cartier, Structures simpliciales (simplicial sets)

14. Jean-Pierre Kahane, Séries de Fourier aléatoires (random Fourier series)

15. Serge Lang, Le théorème d'irréductibilité de Hilbert (Hilbert's irreducibility theorem)

16. Jean Leray, Le problème de Cauchy dans le cas analytique linéaire (Cauchy problem)

17. Bernard Malgrange, Division des distributions, d'après Lojasiewicz (division of distributions)

18. Jean-Pierre Serre, Revêtements ramifiés du plan projectif, d'après Abhyankar (branched coverings of the projective plane)

title: Séminaire Nicolas Bourbaki (1950–1959)


text:
Kicktail

Kicktails are the upwards bent tips of a skateboard deck, today considered vital to a skateboard. The front kicktail is usually called the nose while the back kicktail is referred to as the tail. Kicktails are nowadays key to maneuvering the board, especially in street skateboarding.

History
As the name suggests, kicktails first emerged in the back end of a skateboard only. As street skating progressed, they were made to the front ends of skateboards in an attempt to increase the height of ollies, succeeding beyond all expectations and pushing the sport even further. Kicktails are also found on some longboards. They are now emerging onto the scene with the ever so popular "indo boards", which are balance trainers. They say the kicktail will help with big tricks, pivots, slides, ollies and much more.

Introduced by Larry Stevenson in 1969 U.S. Patent #3,565,454 with the following description: The rear end section of a skateboard mounts an inclined lever that is sloped upwardly and rearwardly from the skateboard. In order to practice otherwise difficult spinning or pivoting maneuvers such as wheelies with much improved balance and safety, a person places his rear foot upon and depresses the lever to tilt the skateboard upwardly into a position for the desired maneuver.

title: Kicktail


text:
File:Grand-Army-Plaza-Herald2.jpg

Summary
View of Herald of Victory atop Grand Army Plaza Soldiers' and Sailors' Memorial Arch, Brooklyn, New York City

title: File:Grand-Army-Plaza-Herald2.jpg


text:
Lancelot Ware

Lancelot Lionel Ware OBE (5 June 1915 – 15 August 2000) was an English barrister and biochemist. He co-founded Mensa, the international society for intellectually gifted people, with the Australian barrister Roland Berrill in 1946. It was originally called the "High IQ Club".

Life
Ware was born in Mitcham, Surrey, the eldest child of Frederick Ware and Eleanor Emslie. He attended Steyning Grammar School and Sutton Grammar School. He then became a Royal Scholar at Imperial College London, reading mathematics, followed by a PhD in biochemistry.

In June 1980, at the age of 65, he married Joan Francesca Rae Quint (née Gomez), who survived him. He died 15 August 2000, aged 85.

Career
Ware undertook medical research with Sir Henry Dale at the National Institute for Medical Research in Hampstead, London, and became a non-clinical medical researcher and lecturer in biochemistry at St Thomas' Hospital in London.

During World War II, Ware worked at the Porton Down secret research establishment. He then worked as a scientist for the Boots Company in Nottingham. During this time, he learned about IQ tests. At the end of the war in 1945, he started a law degree at Lincoln College, Oxford. In 1949, Ware was called to the Bar by Lincoln's Inn and he practised in the Chancery field, specialising in intellectual property, copyright and patent matters.

He was also very interested in Conservative politics. He became an Alderman of the London County Council (LCC) in the 1960s. Ware joined the Athenaeum Club in 1983, a London club. He was appointed an Officer of the Order of the British Empire (OBE) for services to the Institute of Patentees and Inventors, which he chaired for many years.

Ware retired from the Bar in 1987.

Mensa
The origins of Mensa were said to be from a conversation on a train with Roland Berrill, a lawyer with an interest in phrenology. Ware argued that IQ tests were more appropriate and later tested Berrill, finding him to be in the top 1% of the population. They therefore agreed to form a High IQ club, with Berrill providing the funding, and it began on 1 October 1946.

By 1950, Ware had left Mensa, disagreeing with the way it was run by Berrill. However, after Berrill died in 1961, he re-joined the society.

title: Lancelot Ware


text:
Talk:Discovered attack

Presumably the diagram should actually have a B on d3? -- Jake 18:01, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

citation needed? seriously?
I get the feeling whoever added the "citation needed" tag to "a discovered checkmate is possible" isn't a person who's familiar with chess. It's one of those self-evident obvious truths to anyone who's played and studied the game even for a few weeks. Sure, it happens quite -rarely- in chess, but I've seen positions where a pawn move would expose the enemy's king to a bishop, rook, or queen into a checkmate. Here, I'm lazy so I'll let SineBot sign my post for me: —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.231.166.123 (talk) 08:20, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

 * I'll go along with you. If discovered check is possible then discovered checkmate is also possible.  I made the change. Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 02:28, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Discovered attack. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20040805203919/http://www.markalowery.net:80/Chess/Tactics_Strategy/Tactics_Lesson2/tactics_lesson2_index.html to http://www.markalowery.net/Chess/Tactics_Strategy/Tactics_Lesson2/tactics_lesson2_index.html

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 10:53, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

1.Bf3+
How is that a winning move? 2A02:17A0:561:9600:AE4C:A27C:364D:C6DE (talk) 11:43, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * White has a decisive material advantage after 1.Bf3+ K(any) 2.Rxe8. --IHTS (talk) 14:43, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Discovered attack


text:
User:Coolaj86

Information

 * Home: http://CoolAJ86.Havenite.net/
 * IM: xmpp://coolaj86@gmail.com (Google Talk) (Jabber)
 * Bookmarks
 * CoolAJ86 on the Web!

Reap what you sow
Legal Notice: The transfer of email addresses for the purpose of sending email is prohibited.

For all of the e-mail harvesters out there we have a special treat today: For an unlimited time you can report yourself as being in violation of the FTC's C A N - S P A M act. Simply harvest the addresses below and mail away. All messages will be automatically forwarded to the appropriate department without further consideration. Yay! [mailto:IntoTheBlackhole@gmail.com IntoTheBlackhole@gmail.com]

[mailto:IntoTheBlackhole@havenite.net IntoTheBlackhole@havenite.net]

[mailto:blackhole@havenite.net blackhole@havenite.net]

[mailto:spam@havenite.net spam@havenite.net]

[mailto:spoof@Havenite.net spoof@Havenite.net]

[mailto:junk@Havenite.net junk@Havenite.net]

[mailto:ajoneal@Havenite.net ajoneal@Havenite.net]

Y'all come back now, ya hear!? :-D

title: User:Coolaj86


text:
Wolverhampton St George's tram stop

Wolverhampton St George's tram stop is a tram stop on the West Midlands Metro in Bilston Street, Wolverhampton, England. Originally to be named Market Street, it was opened on 30 May 1999 and was the terminus until Wolverhampton Station opened in September 2023.

The stop was built as a single island platform with two platform faces, with a crossover just outside the stop, though in 2015, the northern track was removed, leaving just the southern platform in use by trams. It is on the edge of Wolverhampton's main shopping area, and around 1/4 mi from Wolverhampton railway station.

The trackbed of the northern line at the West Midlands Metro stop was converted into a coach drop-off point but saw little use. It is now used by Banga Bus as the terminus for its daytime 530 bus service, replacing a stop in nearby Tower Street.

Following the opening of the route to Wolverhampton Station in September 2023, services ceased to use the stop. It was planned that services would resume after a few months following improvement works. As at July 2024, this has yet to occur.

title: Wolverhampton St George's tram stop


text:
Talk:Simon Fraser, 11th Lord Lovat

Untitled
"He was the second son of Thomas Fraser, third son of the 8th Lord Lovat" => impossible : the 8th Lord Lovat was born the 2nd of May, 1643! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.64.241.167 (talk • contribs)

 * Not impossible. the Fox was born around 1667, which would makle his father around 23 at the time of his birth. The Chiefs of Clan Fraser have had a tendency to die young, so they started having children early. [[Image:Icons-flag-scotland.png]] Canæn [[Image:Icons-flag-scotland.png]] 02:38, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

 * The Fox? Was that something he was often called?  Perhaps it should be in the article. --Saforrest 04:39, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

NPOV
The language throughout needs either citation from a verifiable source (if it exists) or rewording. Phrases like characteristic duplicity or Even then, broken down by disease and old age, carried on a litter and unable to move without assistance, his mental resources did not fail might be ok for a clan website but are not good encyclopaedic neutrality Alci12 16:46, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Exile in France
"...he was engaged about this time [in] a rape and forced marriage committed on the widow of the 10th Lord Lovat with the view apparently of securing his own succession to the estates..."

Since the next paragraph says he inherited the title of (11th) Lord Lovat on his father's death, does this mean he raped and wed his...stepmother? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Esaons (talk • contribs) 12:47, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Relitives
I am Lord Simons Great,Great,Great ETC Grandaughter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oblivion224 (talk • contribs) 09:44, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Cool story bro! 121.75.132.33 (talk) 07:23, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Jacobite sympathies
There are a number of statements made in this section without verification eg Lovat was always a Jacobite. It looks far more likely he simply adopted whatever he needed to achieve his aims (like converting to Catholicism to get an audience with James II). Robinvp11 (talk) 08:05, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The book The Last Highlander. Scotland's Most Notorious Clan Chief, Rebel and Double Agent which is quoted several times in this article and explains in detail that he was pretty much always Jacobite but only adopted support for the Government when it suited him. For example in the 1715 rising he supported the Government so as to enable him to return from exile in France to Scotland. Once he had done that he pretty much returned to being Jacobite.QuintusPetillius (talk) 08:18, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Simon Fraser, 11th Lord Lovat


text:
Nahum J. Bachelder

Nahum Josiah Bachelder (September 3, 1854 –April 22, 1934) was the 49th governor of New Hampshire from 1903 to 1905. He was a farmer and Republican politician from East Andover, New Hampshire, United States. Bachelder lived at and operated his family farm throughout his life, was a leader in the Grange, and served a single term as Governor of New Hampshire.

He became politically active when he joined the Grange, a farmers' advocacy group, in 1877. Bachelder became Master of the local Grange for Merrimack County. He was appointed to New Hampshire's State Board of Agriculture, and served from 1887 until 1913, remaining in this post even through his two years as governor.

Bachelder was elected as the Master of the State Grange in 1891 and held the post until he resigned to become governor in 1903. After his term as Governor of New Hampshire, he served as the Master of the National Grange. He died on his farm in East Andover in 1934 and is buried in the Proctor Cemetery in Andover.

Biography
Bachelder was an eighth-generation descendant of the Rev. Stephen Bachiler, who settled at Hampton, New Hampshire in 1632. Nahum was the oldest child of William A. and Adeline (Shaw) Bachelder. His boyhood was passed upon the family farm in East Andover, and his early education was at Franklin Academy and the New Hampton Institute.

After a brief experience in teaching, Bachelder devoted himself to practical agriculture, gaining success as a market gardener and dairyman. In 1877 he joined Highland Grange at East Andover and later became its Master. In 1883 he was chosen secretary of the state Grange and filled that position for eight years, being then promoted to the office of Master.

Bachelder served for two terms as a member of the executive committee of the National Grange and was also a national lecturer and served on the legislative committee.

In 1887 Bachelder was elected as successor to James O. Adams as Secretary of the State Board of Agriculture. He was also responsible for the office of Commissioner of Immigration, which was established in 1889 and later merged into the State Board of Agriculture. He was an official of the state Cattle Commission since its organization, the work of which included keeping the livestock of the state free from contagious diseases. He was secretary of the Grange State Fair at Tilton and, later, of the state fair at Concord.

Bachelder assisted Governor Frank W. Rollins in the establishment of Old Home Weeks in New Hampshire.

Bachelder received the honorary degree of Master of Arts from Dartmouth College in 1891. He was a member of the University and Wonolancet clubs of Concord, the Derryfield Club of Manchester, and of the Kearsarge lodge, A. F. and A. M. He attended the Congregational Church.

He was married on June 30, 1887, to Mary A. Putney of Dunbarton. They had two children, Ruth, born May 22, 1891, and Henry, born March 17, 1895. In addition to their farm estate at East Andover they maintained a winter home in the city of Concord.

Author of "Gems of the Granite State", a souvenir picture book of the summer resorts in New Hampshire./>

title: Nahum J. Bachelder


text:
Dorsiventral

A dorsiventral (Lat. dorsum, "the back", venter, "the belly") organ is one that has two surfaces differing from each other in appearance and structure, as an ordinary leaf. This term has also been used as a synonym for dorsoventral organs, those that extend from a dorsal to a ventral surface. This word is also used to define body structure of an organism, e.g. flatworm have dorsiventrally flattened bodies.

title: Dorsiventral


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Vincent

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE.  Rob e  rt  00:01, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Peter Vincent
Delete non-verifiable bio... probable hoax. Tied to Gravitational Oscillating Plane Theory, which is also up for AfD as unverifiable.--Isotope23 18:04, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete unless it suddenly becomes verifiable. — Laura Scudder | Talk 18:23, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, google knows nothing about Peter Vincent and gravity. There does seem to be one Peter Vincent who is a physicist at CERN, but can't imagine this is the same person. linas 22:00, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per linas. There is one Peter Vincent who got a PhD from Albany Medical College — totally unrelated. Punkmorten 22:30, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per linas. -- SCZenz 20:46, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per linas. Also, author of this article, User:Lithium412 has been reported for vandalizing pages.---CH  (talk) 03:23, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Do Not Delete I am a technician at CERN and have personally verified the authenticity of Professor Vincent and indeed Dr Wilcox, who is a personal friend. I can catagorically state that gravitational oscillating plane theory is GENUINE, although the article here is not the most accurate. I have to say, by even questioning the validity of work by these distingushed scientists you should all be thoroughly ashamed of yourselves. If you have any questions, please contact me at the usual address. --Svenson 22:02, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, no-one should assume Svenson is an unbiased contributor. See [|his contribs].  ---CH  (talk) 09:19, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment this page was vandalised by User:86.9.0.194 who changed the vote of another version. I have therefore rolled back to the 09:19, 18 October 2005 Hillman version. chowells 20:42, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, related to hoaxer (several ips) mentioned at -- (drini's page| ☎ ) 22:51, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Foundation Baptist Church of Coeur d'Alene, Idaho

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 21:21, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Foundation Baptist Church of Coeur d'Alene, Idaho
Quite apart from the question of whether individual churches are notable, this isn't an encyclopedia article about a church, it's advertising for a church. Delete Angr/undefined 18:06, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete adcopy. I'd say rewrite, but ultimately this appears to be a non-notable church.--Isotope23 19:20, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete advert, NN enough to re-write Youngamerican 02:42, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete ad. Xoloz 15:42, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete ad --TimPope 10:08, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.


text:
Talk:Geoffrey Miller (psychologist)

He's an economist now?
When did that happen?

Based on personal knowledge and consulting his CV, I agree and have removed that. Pengortm (talk) 04:59, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Untitled
I enjoyed reading Geoffrey Miller's book but felt he had not acknowledged other possibilities for human creativity besides his stated belief that it is related to mate selection. -- 18:06, 14 October 2005 User:Marvin Khan

 * Please sign your name. Tony 01:45, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

The Mating Mind
I feel that Miller's book The Mating Mind would deserve an article on its own, as it has become widespread with a large number of readers through the world. --Philipum 12:36, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I've read it myself and I agree, but I wouldn't know what to put there that isn't already covered here. For now I've created a really cheap redirect page; if you think of an appropriate way to move some information there and write a well-formed article on the book itself, without duplicating content between that article and this one, please feel free to do so. ozy` talk 07:08, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Except that this article is quite short. Why not make a section for the book within it? Tony 07:35, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Personally I'm not even sure that the book deserves a section; the extent of the duplicated information would be that great. ozy` talk 21:25, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Ig Nobel win
Should add a reference to winning the 2008 ig noble prize for his work showing that exotic dancers earned more money when ovulating. Jonahstein 00:08, 4 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonah Stein (talk • contribs)

 * Congratulations to him! [[Image:SFriendly.gif|20px]] See -- AnonMoos (talk) 07:10, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

37 percent rule
If there isn't an article on that, maybe someone could add just a paragraph here about it. German page: de:37%-Regel. Regards --WissensDürster (talk) 17:54, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Intelligence Citations Bibliography for Articles Related to Human Intelligence
You may find it helpful while reading or editing articles to look at a bibliography of  Intelligence Citations, posted for the use of all Wikipedians who have occasion to edit articles on human intelligence and related issues. I happen to have circulating access to a huge academic research library at a university with an active research program in those issues (and to another library that is one of the ten largest public library systems in the United States) and have been researching these issues since 1989. You are welcome to use these citations for your own research. You can help other Wikipedians by suggesting new sources through comments on that page. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 16:47, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Twitter controversy
On June 2, 2013, Miller posted the following tweet: "Dear obese PhD applicants: if you didn't have the willpower to stop eating carbs, you won't have the willpower to do a dissertation #truth"

Removed by CitizenTwo without any explanation why. Not sure if it should be on the page or not (might be too early to post it and that we should wait to see how it works itself out), so leaving it here for discussion. Pengortm (talk) 04:57, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2013/06/nyu-professor-immediately-regrets-fat-shaming.html - NY Magazine has covered the tweet. Time to add it back?

It's been covered by lots of media, I'm not sure why people keep removing it. I noticed one person who removed it was possibly acting in Millers interests because of being a fan of his work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.143.58.64 (talk) 16:18, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

 * I've removed this again. Firstly, it's not an actual 'controversy' unless it provokes significant criticism and argument from notable people, which wasn't evident from the sources. Secondly, it just seems to me too early and too trivial to add this. Whenever anyone posts anything 'controversial' on Twitter, there's always a rush to add it to their Wikipedia biography, but we should really hold off the cyber-mobs and wait to see whether the 'controversy' is of lasting significance first. Robofish (talk) 21:06, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

 * I've been checking sources, and the notability of the Twitter controversy is not in doubt. I think the paragraph about the obesity tweet (which I have just restored to the article), while not the last word about this living person's career, is illuminating about his approach to what is claimed to be a research study on controversial statements. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 16:30, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

 * Tony1 has once again deleted the entire section. I will revert his deletion. It is hard to see how this can NOT be a controversy. A Google search for ("Geoffrey Miller" Twitter obesity) gets over 10,000 hits. The top hits, when I checked were: Huffington Post, NPR, NY Daily News, Englands Daily Mail, ABC News, NY Post, Inside Higher Ed. The University of New Mexico published a formal statement online, which included a video interview with the chair of his department. At the end of that interview, she says that the department will be "investigating" his claims. That's a controversy, and an important one. Whoever Tony1 is, he needs to back off or be blocked from this page. Chaveyd (talk) 03:59, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I say to you, chaveyd, whoever you are, you need to back off or be blocked from the entire site. Tony   (talk)  04:12, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

 * I had thought that was an appropriate commentary on Tony1's multiple deletions of this section without his placing any justification in this talk page. If I am in error, I would appreciate a more experienced editor (other than Tony1) explaining (on my talk page) what was inappropriate. Chaveyd (talk) 04:39, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

 * Chaveyd: it is not a controversy because Miller did not argue it at all. He just apologized and removed the tweet. There was no prolonged argument or defense of the tweet by Miller or his colleagues. It was simply a tweet covered by the media. The Due and Undue weight aspect of Neutral Point of View that Tony1 was talking about has to do with how much significance the tweet is getting on the page. This wasn't a published paper that Miller wrote-it was a tweet, composed in 20s. Whatever connection it has with his research is currently hearsay-we just have the UNM video. IMO this is a waste of time for me, for you, and for everyone else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.50.146.19 (talk) 06:55, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Actually, Miller stood by his tweet at first. Somebody challenged him, and he said a gaining a PhD requires more than just smarts. I'm sure somebody has a link if that would add to the weight that this is controversy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.143.56.119 (talk) 16:28, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

 * Just re-added the obesity controversy section before seeing a pre-existing history on this page. Given that Miller and UNM are now defending the tweet as having been part of a research project, while others are arguing that this isn't the case, I think at this stage we can clearly call it a controversy.  And per Chaveyd's remarks above, re: the number and quality of news sources reporting on this issue, I think we can clearly call it notable as well.  Given that this controversy is more notable by wiki standards than the rest of Miller's article (his notability by wiki standards is dubious, given how many of the sources for this article are written by Miller) and that the article perilously resembles an autobiography, this controversy cannot be said to be a challenge to the neutrality of the article by "Undue weight" unless we're going to demand that the rest of the article demonstrate its neutrality through the presence of multiple, independent secondary sources writing about Miller's work.  The current prevalence of primary sources would have to be addressed as well.  Firecatalta (talk) 04:59, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

 * For anyone who still doubts whether this controversy is notable, have a look at the traffic stats for Miller's page. In particular, take a look at June 03.  By wiki standards, this controversy would appear to be the most notable aspect of this article.  And don't bother with the "correlation does not equal causation" bit, because it is exceedingly unlikely that there was a sudden explosion of interest in Miller's academic work on June 03. Firecatalta (talk) 17:03, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, and you will also note that it pretty clearly follows an exponential decrease in interest. Whatever interest there was is dying rapidly. This was a media frenzy that does not belong on Miller's page. Also, go read the definition of controversy. As others have stated, there was no long drawn out public argument-I have yet to see a source that claims he ever defended his tweet. If there was controversy in the UNM statements it belongs on the UNM page, not here. I question your bias on this topic. Since you started editing the page you have ballooned a topic from a paragraph to something that threatens to be longer than the rest of this article. This is a tweet. Millions of worse things are said in tweets every day, and they are rarely reported to Wikipedia, and never to the level of detail that you have been adding here. If this section is kept, it should be reduced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.228.216.146 (talk • contribs) 23:22, 10 June 2013
 * Correct. "Twitter Obesity Controversy" is wrong on three levels: headings don't get caps like that; articles don't feature what an editor thinks is a "controversy" (particularly not WP:BLPs); the issue of a tweet and some immediate blogosphere reactions is fun, but is not of encyclopedic interest unless a reliable secondary source asserts it has some significance. Johnuniq (talk) 23:41, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The tweet has coverage in at least 5 reliable secondary sources (Huffington Post, NPR, ABC News, New York Daily News, and the New York Post), which are included in the relevant section of the article. That's more secondary sources than the entire rest of the article, which is perhaps why it is almost as long.  I am more than happy to submit this section to tighter scrutiny for notability if the same standard is extended to the rest of the article, which quite frankly does not seem notable by wiki standards.  There are 6 sources provided for Miller's academic work, 4 of which are primary (i.e. by Miller) and only 2 of which are independent and secondary (interviews are primary sources).  Please provide additional secondary sources on Miller's notability; otherwise the article should be nominated for deletion.Firecatalta (talk) 23:56, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * We are not arguing that the tweet exists. Yes, the tweet was there. It was covered by the news. That does not make it a controversy. That makes it a tweet covered by the news; the secondary sources confirm that a tweet existed. If Miller were to come out and spend a lot of time trying to prove the tweet didn't exist, then we would have a controversy with reliable secondary sources. If Miller were to publicly defend his tweet and argue for its validity, we would have a controversy with reliable secondary sources. As it is,we have secondary sources verifying the existence of a bigoted tweet. As for controversy, all we have is what UNM said, which was not a defense of the tweet. I have no opinion on Miller's notability, but if reliable secondary sources are not added to the remainder of the article, I second your nomination for deletion.

Sounds good to me. I'll delete the twitter obesity section, and let's have a look at the notability of the rest of the article. Firecatalta (talk) 00:50, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Update: an IP added it back in. I'm not removing it so as to avoid entering an edit war, but if someone else wants to, please go ahead.  In the meantime, I have commented on their talk page and encouraged them to join the discussion here. Firecatalta (talk) 20:01, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

 * I believe that the controversy section belongs here, but I am deleting the section of it which referred to a Tumblr page titled "Fuck yeah! Fat PhDs." Unless that page was sponsored by someone who has academic or journalism credentials to back it up, it becomes just another Internet page, and one with an unnecessarily extreme title. Plus, that page is really addressing a larger issue in academia, which is taking off on a tangent from a neutral tone that we should try to keep in this discussion. Chaveyd (talk) 02:57, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

 * There have been a number of claims above that this is not a controversy because Miller pulled his comment and apologized for it. That does not, by itself, seem to be enough to remove the issue from "controversy", at least based on other Wikipedia pages. Twitter remarks that were then apologized for remain on the pages in "controversy" sections for Dan Ellis, Sam Olens, Andrea Reimer, Greta Berlin, and Kevin Pietersen, and most likely others that I didn't find in a simple search. Apologizing and removing the tweet is not enough, by Wikipedia standards, to prevent something from being a controversy. And Mr. Miller has "defended" his tweet, saying that it was part of his research project. Chaveyd (talk) 02:57, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

 * In the end I decided that I think it's notable in the context of a broader discussion about fat-shaming and related issues, but that it is uncertain whether it is notable as an incident in and of itself. So I think discussion of the tweet incident could find a home as a sub-section of Fat acceptance movement or related articles, but not as its own article or as part of the Miller article.  Regardless, I think we all agree at this point that the Miller article as a whole is utterly un-notable.  Everyone on board with my nominating it for deletion? Firecatalta (talk) 03:25, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

 * At this point, I am certainly not a fan of the man. And I agree with earlier comments that there are insufficient secondary sources for the earlier parts of this article. But I think that Mr. Miller is an important and notable figure in the area of Evolutionary Psychology. Here's my evidence. Using Google, I identified the three journals that appear in the top of Google searches on "Evolutionary Psychology". They are: "Evolutionary Psychology", "Psychology Today", and "Science Daily". Searches for Geoffrey Miller in these journals find him as a writer, reviewed writer, or topic in 23 articles in Evolutionary Psychology, 12 articles or posts in Psychology Today (although 2 of those are about the obesity controversy), and 103 posts on Science Daily (although many of these seem to be duplicates, including the same line about his as a "Young Turk"). Of course some of these articles are speaking poorly of him, but that doesn't prevent him from being notable. And the top journals in his field do, according to this basic search, find him to be quite notable. Chaveyd (talk) 03:54, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

 * Good search! This thread is getting long, so let's start a new one.  TBC below! Firecatalta (talk) 03:59, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Secondary, reliable sources required.
The info below has been moved from the article to the talk page until a secondary, reliable source can be found to support its notability and inclusion in the article. See WP:PSTS and policies on primary sources in biographical articles.

Miller believes that our minds evolved not as survival machines, but as courtship machines, and proposes that the human mind's most impressive abilities are courtship tools that evolved to attract and entertain sexual partners. By switching from a survival-centred to a courtship-centred view of evolution, he attempts to show how we can understand the mysteries of mind. The main competing theories of human mental evolution are (1) selection for generalist foraging ability (i.e., hunting and gathering), as embodied in the work of researchers such as Hillard Kaplan and Kim Hill at the University of New Mexico, and (2) selection for social intelligence, as argued by Andrew Whiten, Robin Dunbar, and Simon Baron-Cohen.

He has published on visual perception, cognition, learning, robotics, neural networks, genetic algorithms, human mate-choice, evolutionary game theory, and the origins of language, music, culture, intelligence, ideology and consciousness. He studies human mental adaptations for judgment, decision-making, strategic behavior and communication in social and sexual domains. Apart from mutual mate-choice and sexual selection theory, this includes work on:
 * human mental traits as fitness indicators (reliable cues of underlying phenotypic traits and genetic quality);
 * social attribution heuristics, as adapted to the statistical structure of individual differences (including genetic and phenotypic covariances);
 * animate motion perception mechanisms, as adapted to typical patterns of intentional movement; and
 * consumer behavior (applications of evolutionary psychology in product design and aesthetics, marketing, advertising, branding, and the use of genetic algorithims for interactive online product design).

Article & twitter notability
Continued from above:

"At this point, I am certainly not a fan of the man. And I agree with earlier comments that there are insufficient secondary sources for the earlier parts of this article. But I think that Mr. Miller is an important and notable figure in the area of Evolutionary Psychology. Here's my evidence. Using Google, I identified the three journals that appear in the top of Google searches on "Evolutionary Psychology". They are: "Evolutionary Psychology", "Psychology Today", and "Science Daily". Searches for Geoffrey Miller in these journals find him as a writer, reviewed writer, or topic in 23 articles in Evolutionary Psychology, 12 articles or posts in Psychology Today (although 2 of those are about the obesity controversy), and 103 posts on Science Daily (although many of these seem to be duplicates, including the same line about his as a "Young Turk"). Of course some of these articles are speaking poorly of him, but that doesn't prevent him from being notable. And the top journals in his field do, according to this basic search, find him to be quite notable. Chaveyd (talk) 03:54, 12 June 2013 (UTC)" Quoted by Firecatalta (talk) 04:00, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

 * Going to bed soon so will have to sleep on this and return in the AM. In the meantime, here's a resource I've been looking at while thinking about this (notability of academics).  The main criterion that Miller would meet is the first.  I guess this leaves us at an impasse about whether & where to put the twitter thing. Firecatalta (talk) 04:06, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

 * Hi all - so I agree, Miller seems notable by wiki standards for academics. UNM and NYU are investigating Miller due to his claim (not the university's) that this was part of a research project.[1 ]  Where do people currently stand on the twitter issue, given that info? Firecatalta (talk) 13:28, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The Twitter thing is just so trivial. The man is a significant figure in bringing together and extending several aspects of evolutionary psychology in highly productive ways. If people insist on including trivia, WP:BALANCE indicates that it should not overbalance the relatively short article by occupying a whole section of its own. A short not at the bottom is quite sufficient. I'd not even bother with that. Tony   (talk)  15:00, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * You may wish that the Twitter thing was trivial, but speaking as an academic, it really is a big deal. This is one of the very few kinds of things that can get a tenured professor fired, especially since having been on graduate admissions committees, he may have made his university susceptible to lawsuits. And if his claim that this post was part of his "research" is correct, that places him in some serious trouble. Every university of any note requires such research to be approved by the IRB (Institutional Review Board), and if he's receiving any federal funding then he's required by law to have such research approved by the IRB. (I was chair of our institution's IRB for four years, so I'm speaking from experience.) If he was receiving federal funding, then it's likely that he would be banned from future grants for something like 5-10 years. Even if he wasn't receiving federal funding, the normal action for such IRB unapproved research is that every research project he wants to work on for the next 5 years (or so) would have to be approved by the chair of his home institution's IRB. So this has certainly been a big deal in the feminist blogs and lots of news articles and shows, but it's also a big deal in terms of his academic reputation and his career future. And since his only reason for being included in Wikipedia is because of his academic reputation, something like this that threatens to dramatically challenge that reputation is significant. Chaveyd (talk) 15:36, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Vote for retaining article: Obvious notability in field Tim bates (talk) 08:17, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks Tim bates! What's your opinion on the notability of the twitter issue? Firecatalta (talk) 00:49, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

The Twitter coverage in the article is way out of proportion. If you want to retain it, I suggest doubling or tripling the information on his science. Tony  (talk)  08:17, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Tony, I understand that you don't want information on the twitter incident included on this page at all, let alone in such detail. However, I agree with Chaveyd above that since this man is solely notable for his academic work, a tweet that brought him under such heavy criticism in his capacity as an academic is notable and in balance with the rest of the article, especially since we now know that he defended it and UNM and NYU are investigating it.  If this "scandal" were about a personal incident such as receiving a DUI, then I agree that the incident should not be included in the article, and if somehow it were notable enough for inclusion (which of course it would not be), then it would deserve one line at best.  But again, as Chaveyd says above, this tweet reflects on and could impact his academic future.  If you want to exclude it from the article, it would be best to weigh in on the specific reasons why you think it is not notable.  Firecatalta (talk) 12:57, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Not exclude it, but express it in proportion. Tony   (talk)  13:11, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * That makes sense. One solution would be to take the information stored in the thread above this one and add it back in with reliable sources, which would be a good idea in any case.  A second solution would be to reduce the amount of information contained in the twitter section, but I think it would be hard to do that without removing the factors that explain why this tweet was notable.  I'm definitely open to ideas for how to do that, though.  A third & less usual solution would be to create a separate article for the twitter controversy, and include a 1-2 line description on Miller's page with a link to the twitter controversy article for more information, e.g. "Geoffrey Miller (twitter controversy)."  Thoughts?  Firecatalta (talk) 13:20, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

 * Firecatalta, on a COI issue: have you ever had anything to do with Professor Miller? Tony   (talk)  12:58, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I most certainly have not had anything to do with Miller. I'm trying to propose solutions to help you achieve your goal of minimum inclusion of the twitter information while helping Chaveyd achieve their goal of including the information.  If you would prefer to ignore these potential solutions and talk about COI instead, that's fine.  You created the article.  Do you have a COI you would like to disclose? Firecatalta (talk) 16:19, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Seeing as he brought it up, I see Tony lists him among the 6 "people whose work continues to have the deepest impact" on him, which is a clear COI issue given his edits. I also note that related searches like '"geoffrey miller" obese' return more results than "geoffrey miller" psychologist on major search engines, in case anyone is any doubt about the legitimacy of including the section or it's proportionality.87.113.102.210 (talk) 23:17, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * "So what?" (to all of your assertions). You appear to be on a smear campaign against the subject of the article. Tony   (talk)  12:28, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Edit summary for revert of revision 560373318
My edit summary got cut off by an accidental hit of the return key, so I'll put it here. I think Miller's claim is offensive and ridiculous too, but unfortunately we would either need a reliable source to include that information in the article in its current form (i.e. a stated fact), or else to have some grounds to cite it as a notable source criticizing Miller for inaccuracy. Firecatalta (talk) 00:48, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

 * The source is Pascal Wallisch, research scientist at the Center for Neural Science at New York University, PhD (University of Chicago) 2007. His blog claims that it was selected as one of the official blogs for the Society for Neuroscience. So this seems like a reliable source. However, I don't like the way the contribution was worded: "it has now also been shown that the tweet lacks a factual basis" is, IMO, an inappropriately strong statement for a study that was based on a volunteer, opt-in survey. It seems like a useful and relevant discussion, possibly worth a link, but it is nowhere near as definitive as the previous contribution implied. Chaveyd (talk) 05:31, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

 * Hi there! Wikipedia standards for reliable sources usually require that the source have editorial oversight (see WP:RELIABILITY for more details), but I can see where you're coming from, in that WP:SPS allows for the reliability of the author to make the source reliable in some cases. For facts & figures, it's still preferable to put a link to the study itself, and more preferably to a relevant review article. We can definitely include that information along the lines of, "Pascal Wallisch, research scientist at the Center for Neural Science at New York University, criticizes the tweet on additional grounds, saying that in addition to being offensive, the tweet has no basis in fact."  I think the fact that a prominent neuroscientist from Miller's guest university is criticizing the tweet on factual grounds is most relevant to this particular discussion in any case.  Overall, I agree that the info is useful and relevant, and that the edit was certainly in good faith.  Firecatalta (talk) 12:31, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

 * I like that solution, and will add that. I still think the phrase "no basis in fact" is a little strong, so I'll use "factually incorrect", which I think is just a bit weaker. In his own conclusion, Wallisch writes "Just because *this* specific way of probing the relationship [between obesity and Ph.D. completion] didn’t work does *not* mean that there is no possible relationship", so I think we should be careful not to overstate his conclusion (which I think the original contribution did). A more accurate phrasing might be "in addition to being offensive, statistically the tweet does not agree with available evidence". That might be a bit too wordy, but if others think it's better to be cautious, I would certainly view that as a 'friendly amendment'. Chaveyd (talk) 15:04, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed - I think your edit does a great job of stating his point without emphasizing it in a way he might not have wanted, and I think it's definitely fine to sacrifice brevity for accuracy. Thanks for your work on this!  Firecatalta (talk) 16:46, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

The Mating Grounds podcast / book
It would probably be worthwhile adding to the career section the podcast entitled "The mating grounds" which he authors/hosts with Tucker Max and Nils Parker. Details found at http://www.thematinggrounds.com/about-mating-grounds/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.45.88.44 (talk) 09:43, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

 * Seems reasonable: is the book out? podcast/book certainly seems a change in direction so worth noting Tim bates (talk) 16:18, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Twitter and secondary sources
I just removed the following "including the website Jezebel, the magazine XOJane, and Disrupting Dinner Parties criticized his public statement about obese individuals," the problem with this is that it was sourced by these 3 websites themselves; these are primary sources, not se3condary sources and so fail to establish their own notability to be here. What is required is some piece (not copied from here) which talks about these 3 sites commenting on Miller's tweet, and because so far we dont have that I have removed all 3 sites. Other information in this section may be similarly vulnerable thought he initial wire ref looks fine to me. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 20:30, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * IMO the section looks fine now and I trust nobody will now either attempt to remove any of the sourced material which is there (as some ips have been trying to do) or to re-add these 3 websites unless of course a reliable secondary source can be found. Remember this needs to be a WP:BLP living persons policy compliant article and adding negative material without secondary sources is not acceptable. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 05:33, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

 * Further to the above: I've just removed a line about another tweet by Miller, because this was only sourced to the tweet itself and had no commentary on it from reliable secondary sources. We can't describe comments as 'controversial' without any evidence of an actual controversy over them. Robofish (talk) 14:57, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Let us remove this twitter section altogether. It is not notable.Zezen (talk) 13:02, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Geoffrey Miller (psychologist). 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/20130508021317/http://psych.unm.edu/people/directory-profiles/geoffrey-miller.html to http://psych.unm.edu/people/directory-profiles/geoffrey-miller.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060203171219/http://www.unm.edu/~hebs/ to http://www.unm.edu/~hebs

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) 22:38, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Query over an editor's potential conflict of interest
User:Greyfell is reverting attempts to remove the personally motivated gripe text.

May I have a guarantee that the editor has never had any personal contact with the subject of the article? Tony (talk)  05:03, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

 * You spelled my username wrong, calling this "personally motivated gripe text" is loaded and poisons the well, and referring to me as "the editor" is legalistic and dehumanizing. Please just address me as a person and I will do the same.
 * I have not had any personal contact with the subject of the article, nor to my knowledge do I have any conflict of interest involving Miller or any other topic being discussed. Incidentally, one of the people who has commented on this talk page is Tim Bates, who does have a documented professional relationship with Miller. Bates was president of ISIR, a society Miller belongs to. Is this a conflict of interest? Perhaps you should ask him if this matters to you, or take it up with WP:COIN if you'd prefer. So do you have any conflicts of interest you'd like to disclose?
 * This content was removed by an IP in September with the edit summary "Twitter drama usually isn't important enough to merit a wikipedia mention." This is a reasonable, subjective opinion, but Wikipedia goes by reliable sources, not opinions.
 * Another IP from a different location re-added information about the controversy a few hours ago.
 * I chose to restore the previous version, with a minor adjustment to preserve one of the sources added by the IP, since this seemed like it had better sources and prior consensus.
 * If you want to discuss this, go ahead. Regardless of how this information is conveyed, accusing me of being personally motivated and insinuating a COI because I restored content which had been in the article for almost two years is not assuming good faith. Grayfell (talk) 05:55, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Whether you're guilty of COI or not (it appears not), it's still personally motivated gripe text, and a distraction to the science. And please explain "as well as apologize to this colleagues", which you have inserted into the article. Tony (talk)  06:15, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
 * They were typos, obviously. I've fixed them. This source seems useful, so I included it, and the content it supported, from the previous revert. If you have any evidence this is personally motivated, present it here or take it to a noticeboard. Otherwise focus on content. Grayfell (talk) 07:35, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I worked on this section extensively at least a year ago. It was awful and used lots of primary sources. We do now instead use credible secondary sources. I don't believe that Grayfell had anything to do with the original, but it's all in the history. It may be an unfortunate distraction but this distraction was real and affected his career and reputation so hard to see how we could justify deleting it. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 11:08, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
 * You claim it affected his career. One solution might be to expand the text on his scientific advances while rationalising the scuttlebutt text. Tony (talk)  12:27, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Not my claim, what the sources say. Expanding his scientific career sounds a great idea. Please tone down the aggression and stop assuming everyone is against Miller. I am a fan of his science and found the Twitter episode lamentable but not as bad as how we portrayed it. You weren't there to fix it then. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 13:00, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, thank you. Any additional reliable, independent coverage of Miller is welcome. The problems with the rest of the article are mild, but to me it seems like the problem is not a lack of content, so much as it is a lack of reliably sourced content. The rest of the article is leaning too hard on a small number of primary sources. As one example, summarizing the hundreds of pages in a book in a couple of paragraphs is always going to be difficult (if the book is worth summarizing, anyway). When a summary of a book is supported only by that book, the longer it is the less I trust that it's neutral. It's too easy and too tempting for editors to highlight the parts that they personally found interesting while glossing-over the parts they didn't. There has to be room for compromise for this kind of thing, but third-party sources are still preferable.
 * As for the twitter section, according to sources he was censured and taken off of committees. I don't see how anyone could say this didn't effect his career. Wikipedia does (for various reasons) treat academics differently from other bios, but academic or not, no adult is insulated from reliable sources. Striking a balance between due weight and gossip is always difficult, so we should be discussing that, if that's the problem. Grayfell (talk) 20:43, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

The so-called "Twitter incident"
This section is exclusively based on primary sources, which is not compatible with Biographies_of_living_persons. To make things worse all sources are websites. Not a single reliable secondary source. And such reliable secondary sources are mandatory in biographies of living persons, in particular if contents is concerned that is injurious to a person's reputation. So, according to our rules, the section definitely needs to be removed. I know what steps to take if the removal is undone again. Please refrain from undoing it again. --Saidmann (talk) 19:00, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

 * Because there have been no objections against the above arguments, the section will now be removed. --Saidmann (talk) 12:01, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

 * Your assertion that there were no reliable secondary sources in this section is obviously false. NY Mag, HuffPo, Inside Higher Ed, and The Atlantic are all reliable secondary sources. Restored. Bueller 007 (talk) 18:37, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

 * These are journalistic sources reporting gossip. Gossip is no reliable information. What we need is a reliable secondary source from the field of science, because the person we are dealing with is a scientist. Please wait until the discussion on this talk page is settled before reverting anything. --Saidmann (talk) 12:35, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

 * This clearly had an impact on his career. Even if it were gossip in some narrow sense (which is subjective) it's still encyclopedically significant. You do not have consensus to remove this content. The burden is now on you to gain consensus. Grayfell (talk) 01:39, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

 * If it has "an impact on his career", it should be able to support such a statement by scientific sources. This has not been done. The "burden to gain a consensus" is always on those who want to have something in. "Tweets" are no reliable publications. As such, they are not even primary sources according to our rules. They are internet gossip. Online news media reporting about such gossip are therefore no secondary sources according to our rules. Reliable secondary sources are, however, mandatory in articles about living persons according to our rules. Please stop reverting things before the discussion here is closed. --Saidmann (talk) 11:21, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

I have reincluded the controversy in the career section with some adjustments. It is notable and it was covered by NPR which is a reliable source. If you remove that, I will alert other editors because it's simply edit warring at that point. You need to gain consensus on the talk page before you go removing large bodies of text. Sxologist (talk) 11:56, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Political views
Why do Miller's political views keep being removed? The guy started as a self-proclaimed lifelong Democrat who wrote anti-capitalist books (Spent) but has now become a Tucker Carlson-loving member of the far right. That's an incredibly interesting conversion that people deserve to know about. Is someone trying to protect Miller by hiding these views from the public? 98.148.215.217 (talk) 16:30, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
 * As I mentioned in my reverts, "far-right" is a term that lends itself to some interpretation, so it may not be very useful in this context, especially if it isn't properly contextualized or if Miller hasn't described himself using that term.
 * I also pointed out that this doesn't strike me as being very relevant to the subject of the article, which is Miller's academic work—not his political leanings.
 * Lastly, please refrain from making nefarious insinuations about editors who have reverted your edits—make sure you understand the reason behind the reverts behind making any accusations. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 02:51, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Are his views covered in secondary sources, like news outlets? Has he written about them in his own book or anything? It seems like it lacks notability for inclusion. Zenomonoz (talk) 02:59, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm personally a big fan of Miller's early work. I recommend The Mating Mind to anyone interested in evolutionary psychology. But Miller's political shift since writing both that and Spent is somewhat breathtaking. I ended up here (on Miller's Wiki page) because when I followed him on Twitter and saw his tweets, I actually thought I might be looking at the wrong Geoffrey Miller. This is why I think it's relevant to mention. Sometime after Miller getting censured for his "mean tweets" about overweight PhD applicants, and maybe as a response, his worldview shifted radically. I don't think we can speculate as to why this happened, but the fact that it did is worth noting. 98.148.215.217 (talk) 15:39, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
 * While I acknowledge the point you're making, I think what's more important is how, if at all, his supposed worldview has affected his academic work. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 16:09, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, this is difficult to discern because he has hasn't published anything since 2017. I don't know if his work is getting rejected or if he's just stopped writing. It appears all his brainpower is being focused on Twitter unfortunately. Saw tweet from him today, in fact, suggesting that the Proud Boys convicted for January 6th were all FBI plants. Dude is completely off his rocker now. Would love to see some long-form journalism about what happened to him. 98.148.215.217 (talk) 22:19, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
 * If his political views have been reported on in secondary sources or news articles, they can be included on Wikipedia. It's most likely he is just not that relevant for a journalist to bother covering. Zenomonoz (talk) 01:34, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
 * His political views *have* been reported in secondary sources. If you do a Google News search for Geoffrey Miller, the fifth hit is an article about Miller saying that US college presidents are more like "Cold War commissars" or "party political officers in communist Russian or Chinese universities." 2603:8000:1700:43DB:4BE:DF3C:456:3987 (talk) 18:44, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Geoffrey Miller (psychologist)


text:
Strobogrammatic number

A strobogrammatic number is a number whose numeral is rotationally symmetric, so that it appears the same when rotated 180 degrees. In other words, the numeral looks the same right-side up and upside down (e.g., 69, 96, 1001). A strobogrammatic prime is a strobogrammatic number that is also a prime number, i.e., a number that is only divisible by one and itself (e.g., 11). It is a type of ambigram, words and numbers that retain their meaning when viewed from a different perspective, such as palindromes.

Description
When written using standard characters (ASCII), the numbers, 0, 1, 8 are symmetrical around the horizontal axis, and 6 and 9 are the same as each other when rotated 180 degrees. In such a system, the first few strobogrammatic numbers are:

0, 1, 8, 11, 69, 88, 96, 101, 111, 181, 609, 619, 689, 808, 818, 888, 906, 916, 986, 1001, 1111, 1691, 1881, 1961, 6009, 6119, 6699, 6889, 6969, 8008, 8118, 8698, 8888, 8968, 9006, 9116, 9696, 9886, 9966, ...

The first few strobogrammatic primes are:
 * 11, 101, 181, 619, 16091, 18181, 19861, 61819, 116911, 119611, 160091, 169691, 191161, 196961, 686989, 688889, ...

The years 1881 and 1961 were the most recent strobogrammatic years; the next strobogrammatic year will be 6009.

Although amateur aficionados of mathematics are quite interested in this concept, professional mathematicians generally are not. Like the concept of repunits and palindromic numbers, the concept of strobogrammatic numbers is base-dependent (expanding to base-sixteen, for example, produces the additional symmetries of 3/E; some variants of duodecimal systems also have this and a symmetrical x). Unlike palindromes, it is also font dependent. The concept of strobogrammatic numbers is not neatly expressible algebraically, the way that the concept of repunits is, or even the concept of palindromic numbers.

Nonstandard systems
The strobogrammatic properties of a given number vary by typeface. For instance, in an ornate serif type, the numbers 2 and 7 may be rotations of each other; however, in a seven-segment display emulator, this correspondence is lost, but 2 and 5 are both symmetrical. There are sets of glyphs for writing numbers in base 10, such as the Devanagari and Gurmukhi of India in which the numbers listed above are not strobogrammatic at all.

In binary, given a glyph for 1 consisting of a single line without hooks or serifs and a sufficiently symmetric glyph for 0, the strobogrammatic numbers are the same as the palindromic numbers and also the same as the dihedral numbers. In particular, all Mersenne numbers are strobogrammatic in binary. Dihedral primes that do not use 2 or 5 are also strobogrammatic primes in binary.

The natural numbers 0 and 1 are strobogrammatic in every base, with a sufficiently symmetric font, and they are the only natural numbers with this feature, since every natural number larger than one is represented by 10 in its own base.

In duodecimal, the strobogrammatic numbers are (using inverted two and three for ten and eleven, respectively)
 * 0, 1, 8, 11, 2↊, 3↋, 69, 88, 96, ↊2, ↋3, 101, 111, 181, 20↊, 21↊, 28↊, 30↋, 31↋, 38↋, 609, 619, 689, 808, 818, 888, 906, 916, 986, ↊02, ↊12, ↊82, ↋03, ↋13, ↋83, ...

Examples of strobogrammatic primes in duodecimal are:
 * 11, 3↋, 111, 181, 30↋, 12↊1, 13↋1, 311↋, 396↋, 3↊2↋, 11111, 11811, 130↋1, 16191, 18881, 1↋831, 3000↋, 3181↋, 328↊↋, 331↋↋, 338↋↋, 3689↋, 3818↋, 3888↋, ...

Upside down year
The most recent upside down year was 1961, or 2002 if the number 2 is included, and before that were sequentially 1881 and 1691, unless leading zeroes are allowed to be arbitrarily added. In this case, 02020 would be the most recent upside down year. Before that were 1111 and 1001, and before that were 3-digit years, such as 986, 888, 689, 181, 101, etc.

Using only the digits 0, 1, 6, 8 and 9, the next upside-down year will not occur until 6009. Allowing for the numbers 2, 5 and 7, the next such year will be 2112.

Mad magazine parodied the upside down year in March 1961.

title: Strobogrammatic number


text:
Smoke Hole Caverns

Smoke Hole Caverns (SHC) is a picturesque show cave in Grant County in West Virginia's Eastern Panhandle. SHC were opened to the public on 30 May 1940. They are located near the Smoke Hole Canyon from which the cave takes its name. They are located on WV 28 13 km west of Petersburg. Local lore has it that the cave was utilized during Prohibition by moonshiners. There is only one entrance into the caverns which made it secure and with an ever present supply of fresh water it was a perfect place to produce moonshine. SHC is owned and operated by Jerry and Janet Hedrick.

Smoke Hole Caverns has a feature called "The World's Largest Ribbon Stalactite", as well as unusual helicitites, a crystal cave coral pool, found in only one other cavern in the world and the second highest ceiling of any cavern in the eastern United States. However, it has been adapted significantly to make it tourist friendly, including extensive concrete walkways, the introduction of rainbow trout and aeration into the coral pool and inappropriate lighting, resulting in extensive damage to the stalactites and stalagmites.

title: Smoke Hole Caverns


text: User talk:170.252.248.195

title: User talk:170.252.248.195


text:
Talk:Ash Wednesday

This article is about Ash Wednesday and not Lent, so the intro shouldn't be long-winded about Lent.
This wording of the intro is better I think:
 * Ash Wednesday is a Christian day for peace and the first day of Lent, which is six weeks of repentance before Easter. Ash Wednesday is only observed in some churches.[1] It derives its name from the placing of repentance ashes on the foreheads of participants to either the words "Repent, and believe in the Gospel" or the dictum "Remember that you are dust, and to dust you shall return."[2]

The reason it is better is because it's about Ash Wednesday and not about Lent. There's a link to Lent if the reader wants more info on that.Dr. Zaius 1976 (talk) 13:46, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
 * User:Dr. Zaius 1976, I have no objection to your truncation of the lede, albeit I have restored the specific denominations that observe Ash Wednesday as this is useful to the reader. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 16:16, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

The introduction describes Lent as the "six weeks of penitence before Easter". Should it not also say that Lent is a time of fasting? Vorbee (talk) 09:02, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

While fasting as a specific penitential practice or discipline may be encouraged by some denominations, it is by no means universal. This is an area where privileging a group's particular practice leads to obscuring the overall theme of the day. The article about Lent is the place for listing various ways to observe Lent. Bikerbudmatt (talk) 17:21, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Covert Vandalism
User:Desmay, thank you for restoring a more stable version of the article. It looks like while no one was looking, someone went through and changed every instance of "Christian" in this article to "Catholic", even in website citations such as christiantoday.com to catholictoday.com! I agree that major changes to the intro need to be hashed out here rather than made abruptly. --1990'sguy (talk) 04:22, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, someone didn't "went through" and someone didn't replace something with his "POV". However, someone's desire is not an editwar or vandalism. Instead, someone is just removing this article from his list. Have a nice time!--Medusahead (talk) 09:04, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Vandalism may not have been the intent, but, Someone could make productive improvements by discussing the matter. desmay (talk) 15:54, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , yes, it is important for us to distinguish between vandalism and other types of disruptive editing. It is uncivil to call things vandalism that aren't. It's a derogatory term, and wikipedia has a narrow definition we should rely on. Elizium23 (talk) 19:13, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * You make a good point indeed that someone can be wrongly accused of vandalism. And we should not imply you are a vandal when you may have just had an opinion. Sorry if feelings are hurt. I've been in your shoes, I get it. God bless. 97.70.177.110 (talk) 16:45, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Ash Wednesday, the Cross, and the Atonement
I am perplexed that in all of the talk about the tradition, the variations in the ritual, the various churches that recognize Ash Wednesday, the ash itself and the cross placed on the forehead of a worshipper, that no one mentions the "Why?" 2601:282:1985:7BC0:D05A:4E4E:1340:FA8B (talk) 20:27, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Ash Wednesday


text: Category:Wikipedians in Sweden

title: Category:Wikipedians in Sweden